|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,457
Hat-Trick
|
OP
Hat-Trick
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,457 |
From the reported scores in SCYSA website as of 10/16/06 AM(provided I did not make any errors - tie =1/4W for % calculation)
Make from it what you like but the numbers show some surprises to me, half-way though the season
|
|
|
W |
L |
T |
Total |
% W |
|
1 |
Bridge |
37 |
11 |
9 |
57 |
68.86% |
|
2 |
CESA |
63 |
25 |
11 |
99 |
66.41% |
|
3 |
CASC |
6 |
2 |
2 |
10 |
65.00% |
|
4 |
FSCG |
5 |
3 |
0 |
8 |
62.50% |
|
5 |
MPSC |
16 |
6 |
8 |
30 |
60.00% |
|
6 |
CRSA |
5 |
4 |
0 |
9 |
55.56% |
|
7 |
CFC |
12 |
9 |
2 |
23 |
54.35% |
|
8 |
NACSC |
3 |
2 |
1 |
6 |
54.17% |
|
9 |
LCSC |
15 |
18 |
10 |
43 |
40.70% |
|
10 |
SAA |
3 |
5 |
0 |
8 |
37.50% |
|
11 |
CSC |
13 |
21 |
3 |
37 |
37.16% |
|
12 |
DSC |
7 |
12 |
3 |
22 |
35.23% |
|
13 |
CUSC |
2 |
4 |
0 |
6 |
33.33% |
|
14 |
CUFC |
39 |
85 |
19 |
143 |
30.59% |
|
15 |
Tega Cay |
4 |
13 |
1 |
18 |
23.61% |
|
16 |
TrCSC |
0 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
12.50% |
|
17 |
Aiken |
0 |
15 |
2 |
17 |
2.94% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
min 20 games played |
|
|
|
|
1 |
Bridge |
68.86% |
57 |
|
|
|
|
2 |
CESA |
66.41% |
99 |
|
|
|
|
3 |
MPSC |
60.00% |
30 |
|
|
|
|
4 |
CFC |
54.35% |
23 |
|
|
|
|
5 |
LCSC |
40.70% |
43 |
|
|
|
|
6 |
CSC |
37.16% |
37 |
|
|
|
|
7 |
DSC |
35.23% |
22 |
|
|
|
|
8 |
CUFC |
30.59% |
143 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,170
coach
|
|
coach
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,170 |
Absolutely outstanding data and information -- thank you!!!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 2,427
coach
|
|
coach
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 2,427 |
Good stuff futbol!
If you look further at the classic teams results (and I am too lazy to run the excellent stats you ran for challenge), it appears that MPSC, SSC & Bridge have had some excellent results as well, with some of their teams at or near the top in their respective classic leagues. If those 3 clubs would have a full merger, that would be a very big and very strong club overall.
Also, even though CUFC is in its first merger year, I expected better overall challenge results, given the quality of players and teams who competed with NECSA/CSC.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,457
Hat-Trick
|
|
OP
Hat-Trick
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,457 |
I agree with the MPSC and SSC statement (I thought Bridge only had challenge teams). I also agree with the CUFC comment. I left it at challenge only as it is supposed to be the most competitive league and would therefore give more meaningful information. Plus I do have a life outside of this forum... I think???
By the way (chico correct me if I am wrong), it should be noted that the larger the sample the more accurate the calc.
So the min 20 games ranking is more comparable although potentially it should be 40 as the min number of games.
Last edited by futbol(soccer); 10/17/06 01:36 PM.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 2,427
coach
|
|
coach
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 2,427 |
Bridge has a 7-0 Boys U13 Classic team and a 4-2-1 U13 Girls Classic team.
Last edited by 2004striker; 10/17/06 01:48 PM.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 271
corner kick
|
|
corner kick
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 271 |
It would be interesting to see these numbers with only the elite,premier or what ever a club might call it's highest level teams. I know that some of the bigger clubs field more than one team in each age group, one stronger and one weaker.
greenacres
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,659
world cup
|
|
world cup
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,659 |
Then you would have to factor in R3Premier records and that would skew the results. A loss to a R3 powerhouse from another state should not count against you.
Kids play sports because they find it fun. Eliminate the fun and soon you eliminate the kid.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,457
Hat-Trick
|
|
OP
Hat-Trick
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,457 |
I agree with Hurst... to me the comparison is between clubs with teams that play each other in the most competitive league and have an opportunity to meet during the season. Elite/premier/gold... whatever definition, is just a name. The clubs that fielded these teams in this league felt that they would be competitive with the talent available.
I am sure that by now noone would field a team in the highest league if you did not feel you could win. I can see it happening at younger age groups where you may not know where you fit.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 72
throw in
|
|
throw in
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 72 |
One thing to Note, On the girls side for CESA we are not exactly comparing apples to apples, since at the U-13 age group our top teams are playing up. Our top U-13 team is playing U-14 Challenge and our top U-12 Team is playing U-13 Classic.(Of note Bridge's top U-12 Team is also playing U-13 Classic.) The U-13 Team is currently first or 2nd in the U-14 Challenge division. The Team in the U-13 Challenge is our 2nd level team of the U-13 age group.
I would also note that come Spring we will likely get a much better analysis of how clubs are doing since I would anticipate several teams currently playing Classic to move up to Challenge and Possibly the 93 Premier to move back into U-13 Challenge for State Cup reasons.
The CESA 94 Premier and the Bridge 94 Gold played for the first time this weekend with CESA winning 3 to 0. As parents we noted that this will be the first of many times these teams will meet in the coming years. Several of the girls had met opposing teammates at Lundy Camp this Summer and had developed friendships that will hopefully grow from year to year.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,170
coach
|
|
coach
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,170 |
I spent a little time this morning trying to understand the facts underlying this data. The most amazing thing is that midway through the season CUFC is doing much more poorly than I think anyone would have predicted -- certainly more poorly than I would have predicted. Thus, I spent some time trying to understand the second largest club in South Carolina. CUFC has 11 teams playing in the SC challenge league (U15 and up). 4 of these teams are "Elite", 7 are "Challenge" -- there are no "Classic" teams playing in the challenge league. You'd think that the "Elite" teams would be doing very well in challenge league. Of the 4 teams, 1 team is in second place, 2 teams are in third place, and 1 team is in fifth place. So how are the "Challenge" teams doing? None are in 1st or 2nd place, 1 is in 3rd place, 1 is in 4th place, 2 are in 5th place, and 2 are in 6th place. Is it fair to compare CUFC to Bridge in its first year or CESA in its first year? I think so -- if anything, CUFC should have an advantage in that a larger percentage of its top teams are playing challenge than Bridge's or CESA's top teams which are played RIIIPL. (Note: I think CUFC has 4 teams playing RIIIPL this year, 15B, 15G, 16G, and 18G.) This is particularly humbling in that I've stated repeatedly that I believed a merger of two or more Columbia-area clubs should happen and I've stated repeatedly that I like what CUFC has said that they are trying to do [although I've had a few reservations about some of their methods.] So I'm left with the following questions: - Did anyone out there anticipate these types of results?
- What am I missing in this? How is any part of this "not fair" to CUFC?
- Why is CUFC not doing better?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,509
hat-trick
|
|
hat-trick
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,509 |
Quote:
I am sure that by now noone would field a team in the highest league if you did not feel you could win.
As I said in another thread, I have a different opinion on this issue. I coach a U14 girls team that is the second team in our club for this age group. After researching both the Challenge and Classic divisions we decided to play Challenge because we felt the competition at that level would lead to better development for our players, not because we felt we could win. We still have not won a match in league play. With the exception of one loss, we have been competitive even though we have not won. Only one loss was by more than 2 goals. I believe we have achieved a higher degree of development as individual players and as a team than we would have if we had played Classic and won all of our games.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,170
coach
|
|
coach
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,170 |
Coach P: Respectfully, when we're talking about analyzing clubs, we have to pay attention to what the club itself says about itself. CUFC calls its teams "Elite", "Challenge", and "Classic." At U15 and above, every team playing in the challenge league is an "Elite" or "Challenge" team.
Isn't it somewhat logical to believe that the average "Elite" or "Challenge" team of the second largest club in the state would be strong in challenge league?
Look -- it's not like CUFC is doing poorly across the board. The U18G Elite team, for example, is doing much better in RIIIPL-East play than the typical South Carolina team. CUFC has some fine teams. It's not a specific team or teams that are being questioned; it's the club as a whole. The fundamental questions in my mind are trying to understand what's going on and trying to understand what could be done better.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,509
hat-trick
|
|
hat-trick
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,509 |
I was only responding to the post that I quoted which was referring to an individual team: "...noone would field a team in the highest league if you did not feel you could win."
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,659
world cup
|
|
world cup
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,659 |
Ah, Chico......What's in a name? That which we call a rose?.......
Maybe we should get rid of the Elites and the Premiers and go to colors. What would happen if a CUFC team and a Bridge team finished ahead of a CESA team in a certain age group......and took the Premier spots? Would that CESA Premier team then be playing in Challenge the following season? Wouldn't that be a misnomer?
Kids play sports because they find it fun. Eliminate the fun and soon you eliminate the kid.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 46
kick off
|
|
kick off
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 46 |
Coach P I respectfully disagree...
Every club in the state has development as a goal for its players. But development is both age and skill specific.
I agree you should play competetive teams to develop the players knowledge and skill but it should be done in the right environment.
If I followed your logic then Bridge 94 Gold should should be playing with the 92s simply because they will be challenged more.
Getting physically, technically and tacticaly beaten every game does not promote learning and most of all enjoyment of the game. A coach should not only challenge their team, but then also provide success. After all we should be teaching that learning to play the game well will result in enjoyment of a job well done, a win, etc.. This should be presented by a coach to his parents at the beginning of the season.
You cannot learn to win without learning to lose, but you only learn one thing if you always lose.
So it would seem to me that a better strategy may be to place them in challenging tournaments or scrimmages/friendlies and provide opportunity for success elsewhere.
Lastly by U15 (probably U16 for girls) those who will play at the highest level have already develop their interest and the technic and basic tactics necessary to play the game well. At this time higher level players are introduced to speed of play and mainly team tactics in attacks /formation/defense, etc.
So placing two teams in the highest league available simply because you have the numbers makes no sense unless the capability to compete exists. Therefore a choice was made to place teams in the league.
CESA and Bridge, to my knowledge do not place teams in the highest level unless they can compete. The results show in chart. Even their B teams are high competetive teams.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,170
coach
|
|
coach
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,170 |
Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.
In its first year, CESA had teams in the same age and gender group playing premier -- one a CESA Premier team, another a CESA Challenge team. CESA has a Premier team playing both Premier and Challenge leagues this year. It's not a bijective mapping. Teams compete at the highest level that they possibly with the baseline described by the name.
There seems to me to be a whole world of difference between that and the argument that a "Challenge" team would be playing in the classic league. If I'm a parent and my kid plays in "Challenge", I expect a certain level of competition and if I get more I'm thrilled. If I get less, then I start thinking I was misled.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,509
hat-trick
|
|
hat-trick
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,509 |
Lexcoach,
I don't really disagree with your points from a club perspective. Our decision was one made at a single team level and I still believe it was the right one.
We have scrimmaged a couple of the Classic teams and winning by a landslide does not help our development.
Last edited by Coach P; 10/17/06 06:17 PM.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 46
kick off
|
|
kick off
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 46 |
AHHHH!!! I know those decisions well. Good Luck with your season.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 72
throw in
|
|
throw in
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 72 |
Chico;
So reading between the lines which is it a) challenge and Elite level players who are not being trained to their potential by CUFC (HUMM CESA-Columbia) or b) classic level players who are just being mislabeled as challenge teams.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,457
Hat-Trick
|
|
OP
Hat-Trick
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,457 |
Hurst ...maybe we should name the leagues by colors that way we can keep the names.
Otherwise I think I will be forming an elite premier titanium challenge team to play in the fall of 07.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,509
hat-trick
|
|
hat-trick
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,509 |
Quote:
So placing two teams in the highest league available simply because you have the numbers makes no sense unless the capability to compete exists.
So, by this logic, should SC teams be in the R3PL? So far this season SC teams have only won 30% of their R3PL matches.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 72
throw in
|
|
throw in
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 72 |
Coach P. My daughter and her team are a product of the playing up philosophy. For the last 2 years she has consistently played teams a year older than she is, who are bigger, stonger, and faster. Sure they have had a good many losses, however I believe in the end they will end up at a higher level of development then they would have if they had played teams they could easily have beat. I can remember our first RBC Tournament her team played one game at U-11 where they lost around 20 to 0. My daughter was 8 at the time. Man that was tough. The other team was amazing with ball control and speed. Now however, everything has changed and I believe it is in part due to some of those early beatings.
We are now at it again with our youngest who is 8 years old playing on the U-10 Development teams against U-11 teams.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 46
kick off
|
|
kick off
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 46 |
Coach P
Of course. the question is competition and how you stand up. You were crowned the very best because of how you competed and this is your reward.
On the other issue, you are placed into a division because of someone's thoughts of your capabilities. This individual is trusted to provide the right opinion (i.e consultant), the individual who makes the decisions for a club should know based on the available talent where they fit. You said yourself that you decided with your team after studying all info to play challenge. And you also said that you only speak for your team and not the club.
Fair enough
The fact is (I went through the trouble of getting these out of SCYSA)
U18 - CUFC challenge boys 0W 5L 0T girls 1W 3L 1T
U17 - CUFC challenge boys 2W 6L 0T girls 0W 9L 0T
U16 - CUFC challenge boys 3W 2L 3T girls 1W 7L 0T
U15 - CUFC challenge boys 1W 3L 2T girls 0W 4L 1T
so the combined record for the challenge team at the ages I think your development has the least impact is
8W 39L 7T
the same cannot be said for CESa's and bridge's B teams.
Last edited by Lexcoach; 10/17/06 06:58 PM.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,659
world cup
|
|
world cup
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,659 |
futbol,
Let's start by simply flip-flopping classic & challenge.
Kids play sports because they find it fun. Eliminate the fun and soon you eliminate the kid.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,457
Hat-Trick
|
|
OP
Hat-Trick
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,457 |
Your NCYSA undergarments are showing Hurst.....
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 4
bench
|
|
bench
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 4 |
Am I missing something, I don't see Bridge as having any "B" teams at all?????
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 117
goal kick
|
|
goal kick
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 117 |
So what do you do when you have 12 "challenge" level players show up for tryouts? Play down at classic? Fill in 2 or 3 "classic" level players to get enough bodies? I think most teams I have seen opt for the second choice and you wind up with unevenness within the team.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,509
hat-trick
|
|
hat-trick
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,509 |
Quote:
the same cannot be said for CESa's and bridge's B teams.
It would appear to me that Bridge FA is moving toward having only one team per age group. Their web site lists only 2 "Red" teams: U16 boys and U18 boys. So except for those 2, Bridge FA does not have "B" teams.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,509
hat-trick
|
|
hat-trick
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,509 |
Quote:
So what do you do when you have 12 "challenge" level players show up for tryouts? Play down at classic? Fill in 2 or 3 "classic" level players to get enough bodies? I think most teams I have seen opt for the second choice and you wind up with unevenness within the team.
I think the problem is that, within SC, we only have two levels due to numbers: Challenge & Classic. All of our teams do not fit nicely into two echelons. That is why we have teams that are in between and pound everyone in the Classic division or go winless in the Challenge division. A middle classification would be great for those teams, but so far, we don't have the numbers in SC to support 3 levels at most age groups. In Georgia Athena (girls), for example, there are 10-11 teams in each of 5 divisions per age group. With that many teams and divisions, it is much easier to put teams in competitive divisions where they fit. You don't see as many blow-outs in that structure.
Last edited by Coach P; 10/17/06 07:42 PM.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,659
world cup
|
|
world cup
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,659 |
Promote and relegate (darn....I'm showing my underpants again).
Kids play sports because they find it fun. Eliminate the fun and soon you eliminate the kid.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,457
Hat-Trick
|
|
OP
Hat-Trick
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,457 |
Hurst for president....
sign below... and will petition SCYSA....
Could not agree more.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 2,427
coach
|
|
coach
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 2,427 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,659
world cup
|
|
world cup
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,659 |
Bruce Springsteen for Secretary of State!
Kids play sports because they find it fun. Eliminate the fun and soon you eliminate the kid.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 4
bench
|
|
bench
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 4 |
Striker, I believe those are two U12 teams playing up. I don't think they would qualify as "B" teams per the previous statement that suggeted Bridges "B" teams were more successful than CUFC...
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,509
hat-trick
|
|
hat-trick
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,509 |
Hurst,
I completely agree with promotion and relegation, but it still does not help the "in-between" teams when you have only 2 divisions. An example is the U14 USA Matthews Cleats girls team in NC. Prior to U14, NC Classic only has D1 and D2. In Fall 05, Cleats were promoted to D1 only to be relegated again for Spring of 06. They are again in D1 this Fall after finishing at the top of D2 this past spring. So with only 2 divisions, the "in between teams" tend to bounce back and forth. Now that the top 11 U14 teams are in the Premier division, the Cleats seem more secure in their D1 birth currently sitting in 3rd place. The more teams and divisions, the more evenly matched each division will be and thus, different teams will have more chance of being promoted or relegated each season.
Last edited by Coach P; 10/17/06 08:42 PM.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,170
coach
|
|
coach
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,170 |
>>[bamr1] So reading between the lines which is it a) challenge and Elite level players who are not being trained to their potential by CUFC (HUMM CESA-Columbia) or b) classic level players who are just being mislabeled as challenge teams.<<
I honestly have not a clue as to what is going on at CUFC; I'm hoping that someone out there who is more intimate with the internal operations will post and give some insight.
However, it's incredibly hard for me to believe that it would be a coaching problem -- CUFC has some pretty good coaches.
My guess is that there are some operational issues associated with team structure and formation at the policy level of the club -- but honestly, that's a complete guess.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,457
Hat-Trick
|
|
OP
Hat-Trick
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,457 |
Coach P
There are (including R3PL teams with my proposed divisions for promotion and relegation)
24 U18 boys - 8 top 8 second 8 third
20 U18 girls - 8 top 6 second 6 third
18 U17 Boys - 8 top 5 second 5 third
16 U17 Girl - 8 top 8 second
21 U16 Boys - 8 top 7 second 6 third
13 U16 girls - 8 top 7 second
21 U15 boys - 8 top 7 second 6 third
19 U15 girls - 8 top 6 second 5 third
24 U14 boys - 8 top 8 second 8 third
17 U14 girls - 8 top 9 second
21 U13 boys - 8 top 7 second 6 third
18 U13 girls - 8 top 5 second 5 second
You mean we cannot make 3 divisions? or variations to the theme
Last edited by futbol(soccer); 10/17/06 08:57 PM.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,170
coach
|
|
coach
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,170 |
>>[Coach P] So, by this logic, should SC teams be in the R3PL? So far this season SC teams have only won 30% of their R3PL matches.<<
There is quite a bit of discussion concerning the depth of SC soccer and the extent of participation in RIIIPL-East by SC teams by RIIIPL-East folks. Here's the short answer from the perspective of the statistics: typically in the last few years, the first-seeded SC team has been competitive in RIIIPL-East and the second-seeded SC team has been grossly non-competitive with amazingly high goal differentials.
There are exceptions to this -- for example, last year in the U15B bracket two SC teams (DSC and CESA) were among the highest ranked RIIIPL-East teams. However, this has been the exception rather than the rule -- and part of the reason you see more GA, NC, etc. teams in RIIIPL-East than SC teams.
Hopefully, as Bridge has shown and as CUFC is attempting to show, SC can be more competitive in RIIIPL-East with both its first- and second-seeded teams. Please note, however, that SC isn't getting more competitive in RIIIPL-East by playing tougher competition -- it is getting more competitive largely through structural change occurring through the creation of "merged" or "allied" clubs such as CUFC and Bridge.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,509
hat-trick
|
|
hat-trick
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,509 |
I'm beginning to get the impression that some of you are saying teams don't get better by playing better competition. I just don't believe that. I played tennis up into my 30s. I improved tremendously by challenging myself against players better than me. I did not improve when I played players that I could easily defeat. I just believe that, no matter what level you are at, you can always improve and you do that through training and through facing better competition.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,509
hat-trick
|
|
hat-trick
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,509 |
Quote:
Coach P
There are (including R3PL teams with my proposed divisions for promotion and relegation)
24 U18 boys - 8 top 8 second 8 third
20 U18 girls - 8 top 6 second 6 third
18 U17 Boys - 8 top 5 second 5 third
16 U17 Girl - 8 top 8 second
21 U16 Boys - 8 top 7 second 6 third
13 U16 girls - 8 top 7 second
21 U15 boys - 8 top 7 second 6 third
19 U15 girls - 8 top 6 second 5 third
24 U14 boys - 8 top 8 second 8 third
17 U14 girls - 8 top 9 second
21 U13 boys - 8 top 7 second 6 third
18 U13 girls - 8 top 5 second 5 second
You mean we cannot make 3 divisions? or variations to the theme
In both NC and GA they have at least 10 teams per division. SC has no age groups with 30 teams.
Your proposal looks good to me, but the numbers are still small with only 5 or 6 teams in quite a few divisions. With only 6 teams, 2-thirds would move out each season through a 2 up and 2 down promotion/relegation system.
Since you are counting R3PL teams, are you proposing that they play in both the in-state league and the regional league?
Last edited by Coach P; 10/17/06 09:28 PM.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,170
coach
|
|
coach
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,170 |
>>[Coach P] I'm beginning to get the impression that some of you are saying teams don't get better by playing better competition.<<
If that's what you perceived I was saying, then I apologize for not being clearer. Teams can get better by playing better teams. I don't think teams get better by playing other teams that are tremendously better than them.
To put this another way, Nadal probably gets better playing against Federer but I probably wouldn't get any better playing against Federer.
The gulf in the last ten years between SC's second-seeded RIIIPL-East team and the rest of RIIIPL-East has been so wide that SC didn't show improvement through decreased goal differential over time. In the last few years, SC has become more competitive with its first-seeded teams and now its second-seeded teams are doing better. My point was that this competitiveness arose out of structural changes and not simply hurling grossly overmatched teams against RIIIPL-East.
But let's get back to the SC challenge league. The first post in this thread noted that CUFC had won about 30% of its challenge league matches -- and yet CUFC has no "Classic" teams playing in challenge and is the second largest club in SC. Surely you see the issue here, right? Of the largest clubs in the state in terms of select players, CUFC is winning 30% of their matches while even LCSC, who has had some of their most ambitious players move to CUFC, is winning 40% and MPSC, Bridge, and CESA are all winning 60%+. This despite the fact that only four teams from CUFC are playing RIIIPL-East and thus CUFC is fielding multiple "Elite" and "Challenge" teams in the SC challenge league.
The fundamental question is why is CUFC as a whole is not yet able to more effectively compete in SC challenge league.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,509
hat-trick
|
|
hat-trick
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,509 |
Quote:
The fundamental question is why is CUFC as a whole is not yet able to more effectively compete in SC challenge league.
I don’t have complete answers to the questions that have been posed in this thread and I am perplexed by the facts as well. However, here is one idea that may partially explain why Columbia United’s current Challenge League/Division performance is not what many of us expected.
Maybe we are overestimating the impact of simply merging 2 clubs. With the exception of a couple of teams, CUFC’s players have by-and-large come from CSC and NECSA. So, what should be the expected outcome of simply combining two sets of players/teams?
Let's assume the tryout process placed the best players from the merged teams on the Elite team and the next best players on the Challenge team. Given an age group where NECSA and CSC each had 1 team playing in the Challenge Division last year, wouldn’t you expect the Elite team to do better in the Challenge Division than either of the former NECSA and CSC teams while the Challenge team should not do as well as either?
As example, here is a comparison in the age group I am most familiar with, the current U14 girls. Last spring the NECSA and CSC U14 girls had the following results in the Challenge League:
CSC Burn 92 Navy: 4-7-1, 36%, 5th place out of 7.
NECSA Blazers: 1-10-1, 11%, 7th of 7
So far this season the two Columbia United teams have the following results:
U14 Elite: 4-1-1, 71%, 3rd place out of 9
U14 Challenge: 0-5-1, 4%, 9th of 9
The only other age group I could identify where both teams played Challenge last season and this season is the current U17 girls:
CSC Burn 89 Navy: 2-2-2, 44%, 6th of 8
NECSA Gunners: 0-4-2, 11%, 8th of 8
U17 Elite: 6-0-2, 81%, 2nd of 7
U17 Challenge: 0-9-0, 7th of 7
In both of these examples the Elite teams' results to date are significantly better than either of the CSC/NECSA teams’ last season while the Challenge teams' results are below that of either of last year’s teams. Isn’t this what we would expect?
Last edited by Coach P; 10/18/06 01:15 AM.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 72
throw in
|
|
throw in
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 72 |
Coach P;
Lets say each NECSA and CSC each had 2 teams at an age group and that these teams were called Elilte and Challenge. Each Team with 15 Players. This would give you a total pool of 60 girls to choose from. If you took 1/2 of each former elite team to create an elite squad that should still give you at a minimum the same number of elite players to create a challenge team. This challenge team made up of formerly Elite players should be stronger than the previous Challenge teams from either club.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,509
hat-trick
|
|
hat-trick
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,509 |
Quote:
Lets say each NECSA and CSC each had 2 teams at an age group and that these teams were called Elilte and Challenge. Each Team with 15 Players. This would give you a total pool of 60 girls to choose from. If you took 1/2 of each former elite team to create an elite squad that should still give you at a minimum the same number of elite players to create a challenge team. This challenge team made up of formerly Elite players should be stronger than the previous Challenge teams from either club.
At no age group did NECSA and CSC each have 2 teams playing at the Challenge or higher level. But they did have age groups where each had one team playing Challenge or higher as I described in my post.
What you described would be great. I wish it had happened, but it did not.
Last edited by Coach P; 10/18/06 01:11 AM.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,659
world cup
|
|
world cup
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,659 |
Coach P, teams certainly get better by playing better competition.
Chico, teams get dramatically better by combining forces with other competitive teams.
Futbol, under Chico's scenario the net result would be more quality teams, but less number of teams.....meaning a third division (level) would be a stretch, especially at the older age groups when the real consolidation takes effect.
I still like promotion/relegation though....even with just two divisions.
Kids play sports because they find it fun. Eliminate the fun and soon you eliminate the kid.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,170
coach
|
|
coach
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,170 |
Coach P: Great examples illustrating a very plausible scenario. I knew that NECSA's select program had been heading downhill -- I think what we're seeing is the result of the merger of an "up-and-coming" select club (CSC) with an increasingly "down-and-out" select club (NECSA). It's appearing to be an increasingly brilliant move by NECSA to have merged with CSC.
There's another factor someone privately e-mailed me about that I offer for your consideration. I was told that the typical CUFC team, particularly the Elite teams, were much larger in terms of roster size than either the typical CSC or NECSA team. So if you take the scenario that you've got 18+ players on an elite team at CUFC where you had 15 or so players on a team at CSC, then denying the Challenge team those "bottom" 3 players would probably hurt the Challenge team a lot.
If CUFC succeeds in putting more of its Elite teams into RIIIPL, all of this doesn't bode well for CUFC with respect to its competitiveness with regard to its Challenge teams. To put it another way, it appears that if these trends continue that CRSA and LCSC (someone mentioned CESA-Columbia, but I don't even think they have a team playing challenge -- so that's a long ways off) are increasingly more attractive as alternatives for players not playing on CUFC Elite teams. Or am I missing something?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,509
hat-trick
|
|
hat-trick
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,509 |
Quote:
If CUFC succeeds in putting more of its Elite teams into RIIIPL, all of this doesn't bode well for CUFC with respect to its competitiveness with regard to its Challenge teams. To put it another way, it appears that if these trends continue that CRSA and LCSC (someone mentioned CESA-Columbia, but I don't even think they have a team playing challenge -- so that's a long ways off) are increasingly more attractive as alternatives for players not playing on CUFC Elite teams. Or am I missing something?
As a Challenge coach, these thoughts have definitely crossed my mind. But I believe that training is an important part of the product the players and parents are looking for. I think we need to work hard to achieve or maintain a competitive advantage when it comes to training and player development. Hopefully, this will attract and retain the Challenge level players.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,509
hat-trick
|
|
hat-trick
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,509 |
Quote:
There's another factor someone privately e-mailed me about that I offer for your consideration. I was told that the typical CUFC team, particularly the Elite teams, were much larger in terms of roster size than either the typical CSC or NECSA team. So if you take the scenario that you've got 18+ players on an elite team at CUFC where you had 15 or so players on a team at CSC, then denying the Challenge team those "bottom" 3 players would probably hurt the Challenge team a lot.
As far as I can tell, the U18 Girls Elite is the only team that has taken advantage of the SCYSA rule that allows more than 18 on the roster. I don't have the official numbers, but, aside from U18G, my observation is that the average roster size is just on the low side of 17. So I would say this is about 2 more than the average NECSA & CSC team. I don't call that being "much larger" but 2 players can make a difference.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,170
coach
|
|
coach
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,170 |
>>[Coach P] As a Challenge coach, these thoughts have definitely crossed my mind. But I believe that training is an important part of the product the players and parents are looking for. I think we need to work hard to achieve or maintain a competitive advantage when it comes to training and player development. Hopefully, this will attract and retain the Challenge level players.<<
What do you perceive are the competitive advantages that CUFC has over CRSA and LCSC in terms of training and player development at the challenge level?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,170
coach
|
|
coach
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,170 |
>>[Coach P] So I would say this is about 2 more than the average NECSA & CSC team. I don't call that being "much larger" but 2 players can make a difference.<<I should have said "13.3% to 20% larger" (2-3 players out of 15) instead of "much larger"! 
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 427
goal
|
|
goal
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 427 |
Let me jump in here....I believe that CUFC has a competitive advantage over CRSA and LCSC at the elite level as they take advantage of the higher level players. CRSA does not field a challange level team at our age group. Maybe more clubs should combine? However, I would not be surpirsed to see these clubs benefit next year in terms of the numbers at tryouts which should translate in an increase in their performance. I think that the mediocre results at the (CUFC) Elite team level is related more to team chemistry and ultimately team selection.
I believe that the two days tryouts does not translate well toward building a team. From my experience there were several missed selections in our age group. The team is good but there are still a few weak links in the team. Which can frustrate the top level players on the team, as well. This may be corrected through next years tryouts and attrition if the numbers improve or stay the same in the overall player pool in which to select a team. I hope that next years players are selected with some reasonable analysis of past performance and tryouts. It is a shame to see quality players who fit into a team struggling on losing teams while less skilled players(or less team fit players) fight for playing time. Also, the necessity to make sure the even number of CSC players and NECSA players were selected will not exist next year. The results will be very interesting to watch.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,509
hat-trick
|
|
hat-trick
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,509 |
Quote:
What do you perceive are the competitive advantages that CUFC has over CRSA and LCSC in terms of training and player development at the challenge level?
I did not intend to say that there already exists a definite competitive advantage in terms of training and player development. It would seem to me, however, that this is an area where a competitive advantage needs to be established and maintained in order to attract and retain Challenge level players.
At first glance one might answer that the level of coaching expertise and experience constitutes an advantage in training. But I think this needs to be proven over a period of time on a week-in and week-out basis. It needs to be evidenced through performance improvement at the player and team level, but not necessarily in wins. The players need to see that they are benefitting from the training and development. I'm not saying that this is not happening. I think it is. I just don't think enough time has passed to have established this as a clear advantage.
I guess the real proof will show itself at tryouts next Spring.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,659
world cup
|
|
world cup
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,659 |
Do you see any of the high school teams, boys or girls, directly or indirectly benefiting, this spring, from the CUFC merger? I'm sure this wasn't the primary reason for the merger...probably not even a factor at all in the decision.....but is there an ancillary benefit for perhaps one high school team?
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 |
If the players are receiving better training and player development and playing at a higher level of competition, then the various high school teams should benefit. I do think this is happening in some cases if not across the board. Other than that, I don't know of anyway a specific high school team will benefit above what they would have under the previous club structure.
I know several high school coaches that were very much in favor of this merger and of their players being involved. So, they apparently believe it will benefit their programs.
Last edited by Coach P; 10/19/06 02:48 AM.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,170
coach
|
|
coach
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,170 |
>>[Coach P] I did not intend to say that there already exists a definite competitive advantage in terms of training and player development.<<I didn't think that you did and/or were implying that; I was asking a straightforward question because I honestly wondered if there was a belief that CUFC was offering something other clubs weren't. More on this in a minute... >>It would seem to me, however, that this is an area where a competitive advantage needs to be established and maintained in order to attract and retain Challenge level players.<<I could not agree more!!!This is an area where I'd love to see clubs get creative and inventive and advertise what they are doing differently and better. >>At first glance one might answer that the level of coaching expertise and experience constitutes an advantage in training. But I think this needs to be proven over a period of time on a week-in and week-out basis. It needs to be evidenced through performance improvement at the player and team level, but not necessarily in wins. The players need to see that they are benefitting from the training and development. I'm not saying that this is not happening. I think it is. I just don't think enough time has passed to have established this as a clear advantage.<<When I think of training advantages, I think of the following: - Coaches.
- Trainers.
- Other players being trained.
- Methods.
- Frequency.
- Flexibility.
Just a few examples... With respect to coaches and trainers, everyone gets the best they can get. With respect to "other players being trained" -- it helps players to train with better players (you've noted that.) This is an area where looking at win/loss rates for challenge teams gives a prospective player insight into the other players with whom she/he will train. This is one reason that the 30% win rate is such a concern at a club level. With respect to methods, the two questions I ask are (1) does the club have a training philosophy or is it every team for itself and (2) what is the training philosophy. In terms of philosophy, is there an emphasis on short-sided games over more static drills, full-sided games over posession, and so on (almost endlessly). With respect to frequency, how often is training offered? How flexible is the training? Are players allowed and/or encouraged to train with "better" teams as well as their own? Are outside players allowed and/or encouraged into the training environment? Etcetera. >>I guess the real proof will show itself at tryouts next Spring.<<Certainly retention/attraction numbers will show the long-term trend -- the question in my mind is how you get ahead of these numbers to figure out proactively what is going on. Great discussion...thank you!!!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,170
coach
|
|
coach
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,170 |
>>[Hurst66] Do you see any of the high school teams, boys or girls, directly or indirectly benefiting, this spring, from the CUFC merger?<<
I think so. To take a specific example, there are players on the CUFC U15G, U16G, U17G and U18G Elite teams that are training and playing with better players than before with very good coaches (Eberlin, Hiller, Fryland, Savitz, respectively). The 15, 16, and 18 teams are all playing RIIIPL-East and thus are playing at a higher level of competition than is typical for the average Columbia-area team.
I don't think that there's any question that the CUFC merger on the whole has benefited the top 15-18 players in any given age bracket (i.e., their Elite teams.)
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,659
world cup
|
|
world cup
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,659 |
No doubt about it Chico, all of those players will benefit from the quality coaching and higher level of competition. I was also curious, as the teams were put together, if any specific high school was well-represented on a team. If those 15-18 players that you refer to above, are scattered over ten high schools, the net effect would average to be 1.5 players per school.
Traditionally, I think CRSA was made up mostly of B-C players and the Summerville Soccer Club teams fed directly into Summerville HS. Tega Cay feeds Fort Mill.
Didn't know if any of these CUFC teams were heavily dominated by Irmo, Chapin, Lex, DF, RV, SV......etc. players.
Kids play sports because they find it fun. Eliminate the fun and soon you eliminate the kid.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 249
corner kick
|
|
corner kick
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 249 |
Hurst 66,
To answer your question more directly - at least for the 18G CUFC Elite team. Lexington - 5, Irmo - 5, Spring Valley - 3, Cardinal Newman - 2, Dutch Fork - 2, Chapin - 1,Ridge View - 1.
Sorry, I don't know enough about the other teams to be completely accurate.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,659
world cup
|
|
world cup
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,659 |
Thanks deahler, that's excellent for Lex & Irmo. I believe that Lex may have another girl from their high school also playing at a fairly high level at CESA.
;>)
Kids play sports because they find it fun. Eliminate the fun and soon you eliminate the kid.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 249
corner kick
|
|
corner kick
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 249 |
Yes, plus at least three more that I know of playing at the "elite" level (one of them actually playing in the Challenge league) at CUFC on younger teams.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 20
bench
|
|
bench
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 20 |
u16g elite CUFC
DF 5
Irmo 3
RV 2
Chap 2
ACF 1
Aiken 1
CESA u16g premier
DF 1
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 249
corner kick
|
|
corner kick
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 249 |
bombers,
u16g elite CUFC has two from Lexington also...
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,457
Hat-Trick
|
|
OP
Hat-Trick
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,457 |
Observation....
In the U13 and U14 Challenge age groups there are no teams representing - Discoveries, Aiken, CSC, CFC.
These are clubs that historically have placed teams in the higher levels. I realize that the fall and spring can have different make-up (i.e. classic in the fall, challenge in the spring) but one would believe that it would be most advantageous to play the competition you will face in the Spring during the fall season...
Is there a decline for these clubs? Are the "super clubs" taking all the talent and fragmenting the rest? Are the clubs in the border counties Aiken/ Rock hill areas loosing players to the other state?
Just found a puzzling trend???
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,659
world cup
|
|
world cup
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,659 |
futbol,
Last year, two of the best U-12 girls teams in South Carolina were the Aiken Fireballs and the Tega Cay Thunder. Lexington also had a very strong team; CESA kept their girls in-house (academy) and didn't field a team.
Aiken lost key players to Augusta Arsenal and Tega Cay lost players to three different clubs in Charlotte.
I don't know anything about CSC and CFC.
Discoveries has never fielded competitve girls teams in the lower age brackets.
Kids play sports because they find it fun. Eliminate the fun and soon you eliminate the kid.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 147
goal kick
|
|
goal kick
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 147 |
I've reffed the U-13 Aiken Fireballs in Classic this fall. Even if they lost a few key players, they are still an awesome team. They are 9 - 0 with a +37 goal differential. I really hope that they go to Challenge for the spring.
Last edited by lurker; 10/23/06 06:06 PM.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 42
kick off
|
|
kick off
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 42 |
futbol,
Carolina FC has the 92 Girls participating in the u14 SCSCL. Also, the CFC 93 Boys will be playing u13 SCSCL in the Spring. The 93 Boys would have played SCSCL this fall but at the time the league entries were due they only had 11 players.
CESA recruits a number of CFC players on an annual basis and this has a significant impact on the Carolina FC teams.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,170
coach
|
|
coach
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,170 |
>>[Roy of the Rovers!] CESA recruits a number of CFC players on an annual basis and this has a significant impact on the Carolina FC teams.<<
I wanted to give this one a few days to see if anyone else would pick up on it.
I know that I'm in the distinct minority here, but my first reaction in reading this was incredularity. It's not that I'm trying to defend CESA from "ethical recruiting" (i.e., recruiting players when the affiliating organization says it's okay.) It's that I don't see many/any clubs, including CESA, doing much recruiting. I'd personally like to see clubs do more of it.
Again...I'm not trying to defend CESA. Heck -- I hope that they are "ethically recruiting." I hope Bridge and CUFC are as well.
What I do see are lots of players and parents who approach club coaches. I get that -- and I'm sure it's occurred from the beginning of time. But how many players/parents are "cold-called" in terms of being recruited from their existing club team to another club team? Is it really occurring a lot out there? If so, who is doing it and who is being recruited? It's not like there's a stigma to this if it's being done "ethically."
There is a tremendous tendency for parents to tell their club coaches that their kid is being recruited when in fact they and their kid approached another club and asked about a playing position. In my experience, once you delve into this kind of thing, that's what you find. But I know I'm probably missing something.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,521
hat-trick
|
|
hat-trick
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,521 |
I can't believe you left this one alone for four days...When I read it,I had a feeling you would respond.
Since CESA is the most successful club in the state..They are going to have to live with the stigma...You love them or you hate them.I do not believe that club coaches go after certain players.I think players and parents get frustrated with teams and clubs that struggle to be successful so what is their option?I am sure that coaches would like to have this midfielder and that forward but I do not believe that they go after the players instead I believe that they try to build a team where those players will want to come and play and be apart of
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,659
world cup
|
|
world cup
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,659 |
One of the reasons that you will hear this accusation is because CESA has "access" to most of the best players in the state. CESA has qualified coaches who put in the time coaching ODP teams, successful high school teams and conducting "open" training sessions. CESA teams are always represented in the finals of State Cup so their coaches are visible here and at competitive tournaments throughout the southeast.
Can this be considered recruiting.....no. But it certainly gives CESA a competitive advantage in attracting some of the best talent in the state.
I like Chico's idea though. Let's go the extra mile and find the extraordinary kids that everyone might have missed. CESA is the one club in the state that has the resources to overcome some of these socio-economic barriers.
Kids play sports because they find it fun. Eliminate the fun and soon you eliminate the kid.
|
|
|
|
