SC Soccer Forums SCSoccer.com Forums Club Soccer & ODP State Cup Final Fours

Here is the break down of each club who has representatives in next weekends State Final Four.

Boys Girls Total

CESA 6 7 13
Bridge 3 2 5
CUFC 3 3 6
Mount Pleasant 1 2 3
DSC 1 0 1
Lexington 1 0 1
Clemson 1 0 1
Carolina FC 0 1 1
NASC 0 1 1


Looks to like when it really came down to crunch time the "Big 3" clubs came thru. There has been much chatter on this website about winning % and how Bridge and CUFC don't fare to well. I think these results show a different story. If winning % of clubs was a true indicator of how good a club is i would expect to see more represenatives from Lexington and DSC for example.

>>[gamecock44] Looks to like when it really came down to crunch time the "Big 3" clubs came thru.<<

First, congratulations to all of the teams that made it through the opening round.

Second, it would appear that there is a strong correlation between the size of a club as measured by the number of select teams and its success over lower seeded and smaller clubs. Not much of a surprise there.

Third, it would appear that there were very few upsets in terms of seeding. Off the top of my head, there were two such upsets -- both "B" teams of a very large club.

>>There has been much chatter on this website about winning % and how Bridge and CUFC don't fare to well.<

Sigh. There has been a lot of "chatter" about how CUFC did poorly in SC Challenge League play. Bridge did quite well.

>>I think these results show a different story.<<

Do you? If so, that's perhaps because of confusion as to what the "story" actually is.

No one that I've read on this message board has said that the best teams from CUFC aren't on average better than the best teams from Lexington and CRSA. CUFC was and is good for the top 15-20 players in each age bracket in that it offered superior services to those players.

The question was why was it that CUFC had such dismal results in Challenge League play, i.e., why is it that so many of CUFC's "challenge" teams did so poorly. These teams overwhelmed the more positive results of the non-RIIIPL-East playing "elite" teams from CUFC and resulted in quite poor performance overall.

To put this another way...if the only goal of CUFC was to create a club that fielded "A" teams that were better than existed in Columbia previously, then CUFC met that goal quite well. More on that in a moment.

>>If winning % of clubs was a true indicator of how good a club is i would expect to see more represenatives from Lexington and DSC for example.<<

If the definition of a "good club" is the ability to field "A" teams that are competitive in South Carolina challenge level soccer, then CUFC is a very good club.

If the definition of a "good club" is the ability to field teams that are competitive in the leagues in which they play, then CUFC has had a disastrous first year. Can the club do better? Of course. But the first step is to recognize what's wrong and fix it.

Or to put it another way, if as a parent I had a kid that was ambitious and talented and made a CUFC "A" team and I didn't want to drive very far then I think I'd be very happy with CUFC. If as a parent I had a kid that made a CUFC "B" team then I don't think I'd be very happy with CUFC.

To put this yet another way...do you believe that the board and operational management at CESA sit around and worry about whether their "Premier" teams as a whole did better than CASC, Foothills, or even a very good mid-sized club like CFC? I don't think so. I think that they sit around and worry about how to make sure that they are offering a better "B" and "C" team experience than CASC, Foothills, etc. I'm pretty darned sure that was the belief system from day #1 at CESA.

I can't speak to the motives of others in why they raise these issues. My motives are pretty clear-cut. I want CUFC to succeed because at this point they represent the only major short-term change in COlumbia-area soccer for quite a while. But I'm concerned that they are enacting a short-term strategy on how to succeed by trying to "spin" things to their advantage (i.e., having higher level teams compete for lower-level state cup results, etc.) rather than looking at whatever root-level issues there might be in terms of first-year lessons.

Last year at this time I got on this message board and talked about how proud I was that one very large club had several of their "B" teams make it past the first round. It feels like you're trying to sell me on how proud one very large club should be on having their "A" teams make it past the first round. I think our expectations are just a bit different.

I guess you can also argue that CESA entered 5 teams into the final 4 that were not playing R3PL, whereas CUFC only managed 2 (both boys teams and both responsible for the majority of their Elite team wins).
And you can also argue that many quaterfinal games were tight and could have, should have, etc...Or the fact that players from the older challenge team that did not qualify were moved to the younger challenge team that did qualify to try to gain an advantage.

At the end of the day, the record for the regular season stands as written. CUFC only won 31% of their games in the challenge level.

This playof season begins anew and every game is a must.

Good luck to all who made it this far. They are disserving of the honor.

futbol,

"Or the fact that players from the older challenge team that did not qualify were moved to the younger challenge team that did qualify to try to gain an advantage."

Certainly a luxury that larger clubs have over smaller clubs, but it is what it is.....legal as long as player movement is done before State Cup rosters are frozen.

Hurst
Never said it was illegal or that anyone did anything illegal... As a matter of fact I know it was done above board.

Now imagine Johnny working his tail off all season to get the team to the playoffs and then not play because they drop someone down. Why wasn't the other player selected to begin with?

I have not had to experienced this, I do not know as a parent how I would react to this issue.

Chico

If your whole A team B team issue is to satnd then surely Bridge have had a below par year being that they have less final four teams the CUFC. Isn't it Bridge that are bringing together all the Elite players from the low country? Surely with that mission their numbers would seem like a failure.

Actually, Gamecock, if you look at the information from the club perspective, Bridge has had a better state cup season so far than CUFC. Bridge has actually increased their number of semi-finalists, where CUFC has maintained the status quo, no growth, so far.

Look at your numbers. Bridge is designed to bring together the Elite players, however, not all clubs/players are involved. MPSC must still have some players, since they have 3 teams still playing.

>>[gamecock44] If your whole A team B team issue is to satnd<<

Do you really not understand something as basic as this or are you simply trying to debate? If a club fields a team, and that team enters a league, then you judge the team and to some extent the club ["extent" in this case is the combined aggregate of the teams of the club] by how they did in league play. Thus, you judge an "elite" team by how it did in RIIIPL-East, a "challenge" team by how it did in Challenge League, etc.

Now...there are a lot of caveats here. Let's say a team starts out doing poorly and does much better as the year goes on. To me, that's an example of learning and doing better. Likewise, let's say a team does poorly in league play but wins their championship. What you hope is that this is evidence of the team getting better and not just getting lucky.

Let's put it another way. The New England Patriots would in my opinion win any football state high school championship. But that really wouldn't impress me -- because I judge the Patriots against the league in which they compete.

>>then surely Bridge have had a below par year being that they have less final four teams the CUFC.<<

It depends on how you judge Bridge. In its first year, Bridge fielded teams that competed well in the challenge league and Bridge broke CESA's lock on state challenge titles. At the same time, if you judge Bridge based on "completeness", i.e., the number of competitive teams it offers across all age groups, then it did less well -- particularly on the girls side. All of this was discussed at great length last year in Bridge's first year.

But Bridge exists to attempt to field elite teams at all age groups from its alliance members. They have not yet succeeded in doing that; thus, the low grade on completeness.

>>Isn't it Bridge that are bringing together all the Elite players from the low country?<<

Every time I've asked, I'm told that Bridge is trying to field regionally and nationally competitive teams regardless of where they players live. I know that's what CESA is trying to do. It's only CUFC that has the "one community" focus. I say this so that we don't get confused -- it's not that what CUFC is trying to do is wrong, it's just that it's just that the idea of monopolizing the area and shutting other clubs out of "their territory", while central to CUFC, isn't central to the idea of Bridge or CESA. For proof, go take a look at the club's description of itself.

>>Surely with that mission their numbers would seem like a failure<<

Motivation is a funny thing, huh? You started this thread accusing others of bashing Bridge and CUFC when in fact no one but you has bashed Bridge and your motivation is to praise CUFC. In any case...

Bridge is absolutely a club that gets low marks on completeness. But if my child plays for a team at Bridge, then from the numbers I believe that my child will play on a competitive team in the league in which they play.

CESA is a club that gets average to below average marks on regional competitiveness. Yes, they had a team that won RIIIPL-East and had better than average South Carolina numbers -- but overall they were slightly below average compared to the average RIIIPL-East team.

CUFC is a club that had a poor first year in terms of being competitive in RIIIPL-East and Challenge League. Does that mean that CUFC can't and won't come through and win as many state championships as Bridge did in its first year of existence? I don't know.

Here's the question I ask of any organization: what are your goals and how did you do in achieving those goals? This is where the term "expectations" comes into play. Again...if the goal of CUFC is to field better "A" teams than other Columbia area clubs, then that goal has been met. If the goal of CUFC is to win as many state championships in its first year as Bridge [or CESA, or whatever], then we have another week to determine if that goal has been met.

The only thing I'm saying that seems to rankle you is that if CUFC had a goal of being competitive with the teams playing in the challenge league, then on aggregate at the club level the club was less successful whether compared on an absolute basis or compared with Bridge or CESA in their first year.

Of course, that lack of success might lay the foundation for learning and increasing the quality of services -- but only if it's recognized for what it is.

After reading the CUFC web site this morning, and re-reading "gamecock44", I thought just the smallest amount of mathematics was in order regarding results and completeness.

The probability that a club will have some number of teams competing in the challenge league make it to the final four is a simple function of the number of teams playing challenge for the club, the total number of teams playing challenge, the 32 final-four slots available, and how many teams actually made it to the final four. This can be expressed as a variance, with positive being better and negative being worse. Here are the numbers [excluding seeding, intra-club competition, and the like] for the clubs making it through to the final 4:

CESA 30%
CUFC -40%
Bridge 9%
LCSC -205%
MPSC 24%
DSC -52%
CASC 24%
CFC -52%
NASC 62%

In other words, Bridge had a positive 9% variance (9% more teams made it to the finals that you'd predict given the number participating in challenge/premier), DSC had a -52% variance, and so on.

Regarding completeness (strongly, strongly correlated to club size), this is an even simpler function of the number of teams competing in premier/challenge and is given by

CESA 24
CUFC 22
Bridge 12
LCSC 8
MPSC 6
DSC 4
CASC 2
CFC 4
NASC 1

Bottom line: Bridge did better than would be expected for the number of teams it had competing in challenge/premier league; Bridge had just over half the number competing that CUFC had. This is the reason for my qualitative judgment that Bridge did well based on expectations. If CUFC is to compare its winning against Bridge, then it must assume an average team effectivity of about half that of Bridge.

Any questions?

First time I have seen 'effectivity' used in a sentence. Can I use that word to say that me and my Red Neck buddies sho gits a lot of 'effectivity' when we drink our 'shine?

Chico

Once again you have somehow managed to manipulate data in order to reinforce your agenda at denouncing anything positive about CUFC. I have reread several of your postings on many topics and, while there is weak attempt to hide it, a clear anti CUFC tone is evident. I do not know why you would have this and I may of course be wrong but that is how it reads. I simply do not have the time to make as many comments as you do but i can tell from reading yours that you probably never played or coached soccer. % points, Standard Devation, Variances etc have and never will be used in converstations or debates with true soccer lovers and understanders.

Yeah gamecock! I am sure that post had a lot of effectivity on Chico. That will fix him and his Evil Red CESA for good!

I don't believe Chico has any hidden agenda that is meant to denounce everything CUFC does. I think the way he makes it looks that way comes down to a decision made by CUFC to play most of their "B" teams at the challenge level. If you look solely at the winning percentages of these "B" teams, than that looks to be a mistake. There obviously two sides to that arguement that have already been thouroughly discussed. These "B" teams dilute the winning percentages of the club overall, which makes it easy to argue that CUFC had a poor winning percentage and a sub-par year as a club in its first season. I don't feel this is the case. I think the fact that CUFC is sending the 2nd most amount of teams to the final four is a sign of success. I think its blatantly obvious that CESA is on a whole other level then any other club in the state. The bar for merging clubs was set extremely high by CESA when they did so a few years ago, but I don't feel that is a fair standard of comparison for clubs who have merged after them. When CESA merged there was no one super club in the state of South Carolina. There were a few superior clubs, but no one dominant club. When CESA merged to make the first "super club" the state championship sweep was a much easier task (not trying to take anything from that. it was amazing) But clubs that have merged since then have an unfair standard of comparison. With a super club already established, these new clubs would have to unseat a majority of these defending champions, a very daunting task, in order to be considered successful. Sorry this post is so scatter brained.... Had a lot on my mind when I posted

gamecock44: I know math can be scary (it's scary for me a lot of the time...later today I have to revise some of these numbers because someone called out an error!), so let me make it even simpler.

Assume Clemson had 100 teams competing in the ACC. Now assume your beloved Gamecocks had 50 teams competing in the SEC. Finally, assume that the ACC and SEC have the same number of teams competing.

You see the inequity, right? You would expect Clemson to win twice as many games and titles as USC. Thus, if Clemson won 5 titles and USC won 4, you wouldn't fire the USC athletic director and give the Clemson athletic director a big raise based on her/his success versus USC's results -- to judge the two programs you'd simply divide by the number of teams competing.

Since Clemson would have twice as many teams competing as USC, you'd expect Clemson to do twice as well. [Note: This assumes the same number of teams played overall in the SEC and ACC, and that both leagues were similarly competitive -- the analogy works because for youth soccer we're talking about the same league.]

Now...taking this back to this subject...it's absolutely fair to call out that CUFC is a first-year club and Bridge is a second-year club and thus you should compare the first year results of each. It's also absolutely fair to make judgments of programs based on more than winning percentage, for example, completeness (e.g., the size of the program and its offerings), development (e.g., how many kids get college scholarships), and the like are fair criteria.

My impression is that you [and the CUFC web page] want to find great results and tout them. Nothing wrong with that -- it's the heart of marketing and publicity [although I thought that some of the language was disrespectful to CRSA and LCSC, and possibly violated SCYSA rules, I figured that was just my opinion]. But the difference between setting expectations and measuring against them and publicity/marketing is tremendous. That may be the crux of the issue here -- to measure the success of a program, I think you have to do that based on some legitimate expectations rather than sifting through facts looking for those that are favorable only to your favorite entity.

Corrected numbers giving the difference between what you'd expect given the number of teams competing in challenge/premier and the number of teams in the final 4 -- positive is good and negative is bad -- the old ones were wrong because I counted U13-U14 teams in them (thanks futbol(soccer)!):

CESA 34%
CUFC -42%
Bridge 4%
LCSC -167%
MPSC 29%
DSC -113%
CASC -7%
CFC -60%
NASC 47%

Also, the new numbers of teams competing in each club.

CESA 16
CUFC 16
Bridge 9
LCSC 5
MPSC 4
DSC 4
CASC 2
CFC 3
NASC 1

In terms of "making final 4 success, actual versus expectations", the three clubs doing the best were NASC, CESA, and MPSC.

In terms of "completeness", the two clubs far and away getting the highest grades are CUFC and CESA -- both fielded "A" and "B" teams in all 15-18 age groups.

2004striker: I know you're poking at me, and I used high-fallutin' language to express a simple concept, and I deserve it. I'm hoping the Clemson/USC example suffers less from the overly-complex language.

>>[Midlandsoccer17] [...] comes down to a decision made by CUFC to play most of their "B" teams at the challenge level. If you look solely at the winning percentages of these "B" teams, than that looks to be a mistake. There obviously two sides to that arguement that have already been thouroughly discussed. These "B" teams dilute the winning percentages of the club overall, which makes it easy to argue that CUFC had a poor winning percentage and a sub-par year as a club in its first season. I don't feel this is the case. I think the fact that CUFC is sending the 2nd most amount of teams to the final four is a sign of success.<<

This is an incredibly viable argument. I would couch it in slightly different terms. CUFC is only the second club in South Carolina to be able to field "A" and "B" teams in all age groups in challenge. That's an accomplishment. It speaks to the tagline of CUFC "All Youth All Soccer All Levels"

It's funny -- but when you present the most unbiased facts you can lots of folks think you hate their favorite organization. Some CESA folks have complained to me because I called out that they were below average in RIIIPL-East winning percentage. Some Bridge folks have complained to me as have other clubs.

>>The bar for merging clubs was set extremely high by CESA when they did so a few years ago, but I don't feel that is a fair standard of comparison for clubs who have merged after them. When CESA merged there was no one super club in the state of South Carolina. There were a few superior clubs, but no one dominant club. When CESA merged to make the first "super club" the state championship sweep was a much easier task (not trying to take anything from that. it was amazing)<<

Agreed. I thought that the people who were talking about CUFC matching CESA in its first year were on drugs -- for precisely that reason.

>>But clubs that have merged since then have an unfair standard of comparison. With a super club already established, these new clubs would have to unseat a majority of these defending champions, a very daunting task, in order to be considered successful. Sorry this post is so scatter brained.... Had a lot on my mind when I posted <<

Again, agreed that it is unfair to expect CUFC to sweep the state championships this year. If you want to judge CUFC, then you have to set expectations that are more reasonable than that. However, just as it isn't fair to compare CESA and CUFC in terms of first-year state cup results, I don't think it's fair to compare CUFC and Bridge, or CUFC and LCSC, or CUFC and CRSA in terms of state cup results.

If you want to compare clubs, you are going to have to figure out ways to do that that are more nuanced -- or you fall into the trap of setting your expectations way too high [CUFC should sweep the state cup] or way too low [CUFC should be thrilled that it has more final four teams than Bridge.]

I believe that every club has its weak points based on expectations. For Bridge, I think it's completeness -- particularly on the girls side. For CESA, I think it's the growth of the recreation program and getting into the USYSA nationals. For CUFC, I think it's the "B" and "C" teams of the club. The issue I see at this point is that I see Bridge addressing their issue actively, I see CESA getting millions for more fields to increase recreation and making some strides [not enough!] to get into nationals, but I haven't been able to get from anyone a reasoned discussion as to the systemic issues underlying what occurred this year in challenge league with the CUFC "B" teams -- thus my concern.

Another thing I find interesting - CESA has 5 of its 8 B teams in the final 4. No other club in the state has even 1 B team in the final 4.
Previously it was stated that when clubs merge, all of the strong players from the old teams are put in the A teams to make them stronger and the weak players are left on the B teams to make them weaker than the average. If this is the case, how did CESA manage to get 5 B teams in the final 4?

It seems to me in its simplest terms it is all going to come down to who is the finalists and victors this weekend. If CUFC has more finalists and victors then the 2 clubs combined did last year then I would consider the merger successful. I'm sure there are plenty of other measures of success that Chico has pointed out, but that is the clearest one for me. We can also use the same form of measurement for CESA and Bridge.

Hey Chico you've done the Math for club comparison this year, but have you done it for teams making the different stages last year vs. this year.

Chico: Great statistics, at least you get the same numbers to study. The only thing I can wonder is whether one can come up with a metric that would allow CUFC to compare itself back to last year's NESCA/CSC ... something like 1 point for a team making the playoffs, 2 points for making second round, 3 points for finalist, and 4 pts for champion. Then split that out and compare "A" team this year to the better of the NESCA/CSC teams last year, etc.

bamr, right now with the age groups participating in this state cup, last years U14-U17, the combined CUFC is currently equal to the separate CSC/NECSA, with 6 in the semis.

Further CUFC had 4 teams playing RIII, implying 4 CSC/NECSA teams made the finals.

That's an easy first cut.

I think you are measuring CUFC way too tightly and early. Did they screw up by playing B team at the highest level? Yeah, probably. If they had to do it again, would they? No, probably not. Does it matter in the long terms? I don't think so.

I would counsel patience......a successful merger will NOT be determined by outsiders. It will NOT be determined or measured by the number State Cup winners or finalists. I will be determined solely by the families. To me, there are only 2 things worth lookiung at and they won't be known until late May.

1. Number of State Cup winner and finalists for 2006-07 versus combined totals for 2005-6.

2. Number of kids accepting CUFC spots for challenge and classic teams for 2007-8, versus 2006-7.

They are not competing with CESA or Bridge organizationally and comparing them is unfair. Might as well compare CSC and NECSA to GFC and St Giles. They would have lost on that comparison too.....so starting points are different. They need to grow......and they need to offer quality. In my mind, that is their report card.

If you want to compare CUFC and CESA or Bridge.....I think you need to look at year over year performance and rates of improvement, as opposed to direct comparisons.

To the tune of the devil went down to Georgia

I apologize up front to Charlie Daniels\

Cola FC went down to State Cup
They were looking for a championship to steal
And they were in a bind
'Cause they were way behind
And were willin' to make a deal.

When they came upon this team playing
a ball and playin' it hot
Cola FC jumped up on the bench and said,
"Boy let me tell you what:

We bet you didn't know it
but we are soccer players too,
And if you care to take a dare
we'll make a bet with you
Now you play pretty good soccer boy
But give Cola FC its due
we'll bet a ball of gold against your soul
'Cause we think we are better than you."

The team said, "Our name's CESA
And it might be a sin
But we'll take your bet, you’re gonna regret
'Cause we’re the best that's ever been."

CESA get your boots on and play your soccer hard
'Cause hell's broke loose in State Cup
And Cola FC deals the cards
And if you win you get this shiny ball made of gold
But if you lose Cola FC gets your soul.

Cola FC opened up their bags and said,
"we'll start this show."
And fire flew from their fingertips
As they put their boots on.
And they shot the balls across the pitch
And it made an evil hiss
Then a band of parents joined in
And they began yelling something like this (!!!C’mon Ref you blind!!!)

When Cola FC finished pressuring, CESA said,
"Well you're pretty good ol' son!
But stand on the pitch, right there
And let me show you how it's done!"

Fire at the State Cup, run boys run
Cola FC is in the house of the rising sun
Players on the field kicking at balls
Coach does your team “bite”? No, child, no

Cola FC bowed their heads when the whistle blew
Because they knew that they'd been beat,
And they laid that golden ball
On the ground at CESA's feet
CESA said, "CUFC, just come on back
if you ever wanna try again.
I done told you once,
You son-of-a-gun,
we’re the best that's ever been!"

Fire at the State Cup, run boys run
Cola FC is in the house of the rising sun
Players on the field kicking at balls
Coach does your team “bite”? No, child, no

Big Daddy I have to disagree with you.

Except in the Academy, Where we all hear weekly "that it is not about wins and losses, but about player development", in the older age groups it is about wins and losses. I believe the same goes for a club. You can judge a club based on their stated goals and whether or not they are meeting those goals. For every club the goal is different, but Chico and others have limited themselves to comparing CUFC based on what they say their goals are.

I agree that we are early and that there will be a much clearer picture come Spring, however I think we can look at the fall and draw some early conclusions.

Come next weekend we will be able to answer whether or not in the upper ages at the challenge level clubs are improving, remaining the same, or declining.

Number of kids accepting CUFC spots for challenge and classic teams for 2007-8, versus 2006-7.
I would agree that this is a highly relevant measure of success, however what if a club gets the same number of kids, but that the kids are less talented. I think it is about quality not quantity. If CUFC teams don't make the premier league will they lose players to Bridge and CESA.

Kim

Awesome

The post from Futbol is absolutely the funniest that I have ever seen on this board.

Well done!

futbol, you da man!! or wo-man. very funny!!!!!!!

Most of these posts are only addressing how CUFC's A teams did or will do in Challenge this season. CUFC did very poorly among its Premier, Classic and B teams. To judge a club's total quality you have look at all segments not just one.

In fall 2006
CUFC in premier won 15% of their games
CUFC in Challenge won 31% of their games
CUFC in Classic won 9% of their games
CUFC in Sandlapper (academy) won 48% of their games

The following is what is listed on the CUFC Website as their vision. "We will be the most recognized state youth soccer organization of choice fostering competition, creating opportunities and encouraging participation at every level of play."

So, I would agree that we then have to look at them across all levels of play.

I guess the question is how do you get recognition. I think a stong argument can be made that you achieve recognition by having strong winning top level teams, however I do believe it is relevant to make a comparison of all levels.

Kim

Scotland,

Two possible explainations as to how CESA was able to put 5 "B" teams in the finals.

1. The "A" team didn't actually get the best players. Not because the evaluators and coaches didn't try but because it's not an exact science.

2. Maybe CESA has more "better" players. Think UNC basketball this year. I imagine they could field 2 teams that would be in the top 20 in the nation.

Bamr,

I don't disagree with you. I just think its unfair to be judging the Club a failure after a single season. I know you haven't.....nor has anyone else directly.

But the bigger point is this.....you can't compare CUFC to CESA anymore than you could compare CSC-NECSA to St Giles-GFC, who were both more successful than either of the Columbia clubs.

If the point is to determine whether or not the merger was a success or not, I would think you'd ask if a synergy had been created. Did 2+2=5 occur? Was CUFC more successful this year then CSC-NECSA were last year? I would even look not just at last year.....but maybe over 2-3 years.

If the answer is no......they were less successful this Fall then the old clubs historically had been, then all you can assume from that is that there was no immediate payback.

If they don't grow numbers next year......coupled with mediocre performance on the field again next year....then perhaps its fair to call the merger a bust/disappointment. But we're a year away from that.

Chico, you da numbers man. Can you tell us how many State Cups were won by CSC/NECSA last year along with Finalists? And can you also give us a 3 year average? That way we can compare CUFC to itself.....and see how they have done.

Big Daddy,

Last year, U13-U18 Challenge State Cup.

CSC
Champ-0
Finalist-4 U14B, U15G, U17G, U18B

NECSA
Champ-1 U18B
Finalist-1 U14G

Remove the U18s because they have aged out, and your left with 4 teams making the finals. There were no champs/finalists in last years U13s.

Right now, CUFC has 6 teams making the semis, and if you remove the U18s because of aging out, that's equal to the number CSC/NECSA put in the semis last cup season.

Chico can do the 3 year average, but the information above is on the SCYSA web site.

Looks like the 15 boys....and the 15,16,18 girls have a realistic crack of being at least a Finalist.

Also looks like there would be minimal chance of a CUFC team making a Final at U13 or 14.

So we're looking at 6 teams last year and at best 4 this year. Unless 2 or 3 of the 4 end up winning the whole thing.....yeah, I guess I'd say the year was a disappointment competitively.

But I'd also say that this doesn't mean the merger was a failure. If their numbers grow.....if their competitveness improves....parents and kids are happy.....there is more than 1 way to skin a cat.

There are 24 opportunities to be at least a Finalist. With Bridge and CESA, particularly CESA, what is realistic for a CUFC or a Lexington or Mount Pleasant.....let alone a Discoveries or Tega Cay......to actually work towards.

>>[scotland] Another thing I find interesting - CESA has 5 of its 8 B teams in the final 4. No other club in the state has even 1 B team in the final 4. Previously it was stated that when clubs merge, all of the strong players from the old teams are put in the A teams to make them stronger and the weak players are left on the B teams to make them weaker than the average. If this is the case, how did CESA manage to get 5 B teams in the final 4?<<

Last year CESA placed 6 "B" teams in the final 4; this year they placed 5. Typically, when you're talking about this small a sample set the difference of 1 isn't a big deal -- so I hadn't called that out yet. But overall, I couldn't agree more -- this is absolutely as big a deal as finalists in the state cup -- and yet one that gets continuously overlooked in favor of the more "sexy" challenge cup numbers.

Regarding "how", there seemed at CESA to be a focus at the board level and executive director level to ensure equal treatment for the various levels of teams. I know that there was an effort that coaches coaching "A" teams also coached "B" teams as well, for example. There was also no cherry picking allowed such that you inflated the size of an "A" team and thus hurt the "B" team -- this is one of the reasons that goals for the size of the teams are written down. This applies to "playing up" as well -- the only way a kid could "play up" is if the coach expected that kid to immediately start.

Then again, there was never any confusion over what was going on at CESA. There were never announcements comparing its elite teams to those of CASC or Foothills. The fundamental belief at CESA was that in order to provide the best possible services to youth soccer players that the club had to offer an experience to the "B" and "C" player that was better than could be gotten on the select team of another local club.

The greatest potential danger I see for CUFC in the next year is the possibility that LCSC and CRSA are going to benefit from a "B" team player migration due to the perception of better offerings on the LCSC and CRSA select teams. I don't think that CUFC is going to lose that many of its top 15-20 players to anyone else (top 2-3, maybe...but that's it) -- if for no other reason than most kids/parents don't value soccer highly enough to commute.

>>[bamr1] It seems to me in its simplest terms it is all going to come down to who is the finalists and victors this weekend. If CUFC has more finalists and victors then the 2 clubs combined did last year then I would consider the merger successful. I'm sure there are plenty of other measures of success that Chico has pointed out, but that is the clearest one for me. We can also use the same form of measurement for CESA and Bridge.<<

This is a form of goal-setting often called "incremental." Lots of folks use it. Jack Welch during his time with General Electric hated it and thought it was absolute evil; but I've seen lots of folks use it lots of times. The basis of Welch's hatred of incremental goal setting was that it didn't take into account the current environment and reality; instead, it was internally focused and would achieve only incremental improvement.

Now...I can see "gamecock44" reading this and thinking that I'm somehow criticizing CUFC again...so to put the record straight, I believe that the merger was successful based on the tryout evaluations done during the summer. I believe that CUFC being able to achieve approximately the same number of teams in its select program is a good first definition of merger success.

One other comment. I believe that winning state championships, or even just achieving finalist positions, is a good benchmark for the "A" teams of a club. In order to fully serve all of the players, and not just the top 15-20, you need benchmarks for the "B", "C", academy, and recreation programs as well.

(Note: Others have now already made this point -- better than me.)

>>Hey Chico you've done the Math for club comparison this year, but have you done it for teams making the different stages last year vs. this year. <<

I thought about a paid subscription service to justify my doing this kind of thing, but didn't think it would show much of a profit!

No...really..."Comet" answered it better than me.

What will the service cost? I will pay no more than 2 milkbone dog biscuits per month.

>>[Big Daddy] I think you are measuring CUFC way too tightly and early. Did they screw up by playing B team at the highest level? Yeah, probably. If they had to do it again, would they? No, probably not. Does it matter in the long terms? I don't think so.<<

Several things of note here. First, if there was a "screw up" and it was acknowledged by the club, then I'd be the first to note that they tried something ambitious and didn't make it and that they should get extra credit points for their ambition. But I have not a clue as to whether there is a perception that mistakes were made. More importantly, the majority of the players/parents on the select teams (which are not the "Elite" players/parents) don't know it either.

>>I would counsel patience......a successful merger will NOT be determined by outsiders. It will NOT be determined or measured by the number State Cup winners or finalists. I will be determined solely by the families. To me, there are only 2 things worth lookiung at and they won't be known until late May.<<

To whom are you counseling patience? To those players/parents who have to make a decision next spring as to whether they go to another area club or to CUFC? Or to those on a message board discussing and attempting to diagose the issues that occurred.

CUFC is like any other organization in that it is going to "market" itself using hand-picked facts to present itself in the most favorable light. There is nothing wrong with that -- every organization does it. There are a handful of people on this message board and in other places who attempt to look past the "spin" and find what they perceive to be objective facts. I don't want these folks to be patient -- I think that the more facts that are discussed (and refuted), the better informed people are in making decisions.

Now...earlier "gamecock44" accused me of an anti-CUFC bias. Isn't it interesting that we take for granted the bias of these clubs but we rapidly accuse others of bias when their presentation of facts or opinions don't agree with ours? In any case, I can speak to two things that I'm biased toward:

a) I want South Carolina soccer to be stronger. I applaud Bridge and CESA for so far making this happen. I applaud CUFC for trying to make it happen.

b) I want Columbia area soccer to be stronger. I like the fact that CUFC merged and is trying to do something to make Columbia stronger. I like the fact that we have a nascient club, CESA-Columbia, that might help in a few years. I like the fact that CRSA is an "open club" that has welcomed other kids to come in and train regardless of affiliation. What I don't like, and what I've spoken out against, is the mentality that this is all some "zero-sum" game in which only CUFC can survive and prosper.

>>1. Number of State Cup winner and finalists for 2006-07 versus combined totals for 2005-6.

2. Number of kids accepting CUFC spots for challenge and classic teams for 2007-8, versus 2006-7.<<

Certainly the number of finalists has an impact on kids returning to teams given the premier league opportunity. However, it's the information that is being developed and discussed now that gives the parents of the average kid the best chance of making an informed decision next spring during tryouts.

>>They are not competing with CESA or Bridge organizationally and comparing them is unfair.<<

Huh? I would beg to differ. CUFC is competing with Bridge and CESA and CRSA and LCSC and a host of other groups "organizationally." How do you perceive that they are not doing so?

>>Might as well compare CSC and NECSA to GFC and St Giles. They would have lost on that comparison too.....so starting points are different. They need to grow......and they need to offer quality. In my mind, that is their report card.<<

At my last place of work, when someone mentioned "quality", they either meant "objectively measurable results measured in the short-term, medium-term, and long-term" or they meant "shut up and leave me alone because I'm doing the best I can." It was the "objective measurement" folks that tended to do the best work.

If you have other objectively measured results to propose and present, then that would be great. But no "quality" program I've ever heard of simply waits to see the annual results -- and no "quality" program I've ever heard of is run through a marketing program.

>>If you want to compare CUFC and CESA or Bridge.....I think you need to look at year over year performance and rates of improvement, as opposed to direct comparisons.<<

I understand the lure of incremental performance benchmarking. However, benchmarking against external organizations is not done because it's fun, but because there are real competitive pressures in the world. For CUFC, it's not CESA and Bridge that are the primary competition -- it's LCSC and CRSA. If you don't think that "direct comparisons" is being done against those clubs by CUFC, please go read the web site (or go look at a billboard in Columbia).

Again, I don't think there's any question that the "elite" teams of CUFC are better on average than the teams of other clubs; however, I also don't think that there's any question that the "average" team of the other clubs are better on average than the "average" team of CUFC. That's a message worth getting out -- if for no other reason than to (a) help CUFC see it and make some hard decisions about how to get better, (b) help parents make the best decisions for their individual children, and (c) help CRSA and LCSC understand better how they might market themselves against an entrenched and well-financed organazation who seems intent on eliminating competition.

Lastly, and I say this again so that no one misses it, what CUFC deserves the most credit for is that they actually have stepped up and done something after years of Columbia not doing that much of anything. I wouldn't want to see CUFC go away. At the same time, I sure don't want to see CRSA or other clubs go away either. Thus, my real motivation -- to give as much information as I can to folks to make the best possible decisions -- because I believe that self-interested parents and players presented with the best information will make the Columbia area better with regards to youth soccer.