SC Soccer Forums SCSoccer.com Forums Club Soccer & ODP SC Challenge Cup

(Full Article Link Including Graphics)

Commentary: With respect to elite youth soccer in the state of South Carolina; there were basically three stories in 2006. CUFC in only its first year of existence came on strong in terms of placing finalists (and thus securing RIIIPL-East slots). CESA continues to dominate the state in terms of finalists and champions. And the Bridge experienced a "sophomore slump" in terms of making progress with respect to securing finalists and champion positions.

(More...)

Chico—

You have excellent info and conclusions from that data—Thanks—

My 2 cents—CESA has a great track record with Girls soccer; there is something there we could all learn from.

Also, how do we make a bigger impact regionally?

If you look at the U16B state championship match—Does SC aim to have a state champion (best team on that day) or do we look at a season's worth of success at a regional level (PLRIII champion)?—Interesting to look at the U16B and think of this—

I saw some "hot" teams at state cup that may or may not be the "best" team over the long haul—What does the state or any club want?—Then how do we do it?—

SC soccer can continue to improve—That is exciting—

purpleandyellow...interesting you should ask about the "overall" success of the U16 age group...

DSC
U13 - State Champion; beat CESA in overtime (golden goal)
U14 - Finalist; lost to CESA; R3PL CHAMPION
U15 - Semi-finalist; lost to Bridge in double overtime; R3PL-TIED FOR 2ND W/ CESA
U16 - State Champion

CESA
U13 - Finalist; lost to DSC in overtime
U14 - State Champion; beat DSC
U15 - State Champion; beat Bridge; R3PL TIED FOR 2ND W/ DSC
U16 - Finalist; lost to DSC; R3PL CHAMPION

So, over the course of the last 4 seasons, these two teams have been VERY evenly competitive, both with their fair share of ups and downs. It is unfair to imply in your post that DSC was just 'hot' yesterday...or maybe I just misunderstood your post. Either way, CESA Premier and DSC 90 Green have been pretty evenly matched. Anytime these two teams get together on the pitch, one never can predict the outcome...

Never intended a "hot" comment to be negative; first, there is nothing wrong with being "hot," although I was actually referring to U17 matches, not the U16B.

The U16B results are perfect for discussing what the GOAL in SC should be—state cup or regional/national success. In other words, should CESA U16B place NOT winning state in context of winning PL???

This is a hard one—raising it because I don't know.

Again, look at the U16B; they could easily BOTH deserve to be #1 in the state, whereas in other ages (either B or G), only one team is clearly the best.

I truly meant NO negative comments about either U16B; it was a well played match, two fine teams. And as posted above, a great record over years.

P&Y

I would be very interested in your comments on the U17 matches.... I would very much like your definition of hot

Lexington went 14-0-1, and CUFC went 11-3-1 in the season through cup, certainly not R3PL but still had to beat both R3PL reps and last years regional quarterfinalists to get to the final.

I am certain that both teams filled their schedule with tough outside the league opponents to ensure this type of performance.

Why the Hot comment?

OK—one more time—"hot" for me is not as negative thing! The two teams I pulled for that both won state cups were HOT Sunday. And individual players were hot.

As I stated above, I do not use that term as a negative. I will say that on Sat U17B Lexington was playing with fire and pace; I was pulled to watching that match because a team was hot.

I hate the focus has been on the "hot" comments because I am more interested in SC looking beyond single matches and to sustained quality. I believe shooting ONLY for state cup is asking too little of our soccer in SC. BUT winning state cup is great!

"Hot" (defined): In sports, a player or team that successfully combines talent and passion in a sporting moment that raises the level of results. And often inspires other athletes and the fans.

This was a fun group to watch...CUFC beat Bridge 1-0 and lexington beat CUFC 1-0..Very competitve group..
Between CESA,Bridge,CUFC and Lexington..Any team could win any given week

If I had to have picked an upset this weekend, other than the U17B (where last August I was calling out Lexington as a very, very strong team), it would have been U16B. I couldn't have predicted DSC (and no doubt would have picked Bridge given RIIIPL-East results); but I would have predicted that if an upset were to occur it would have been CESA U16B losing. Why? Because CESA U16B had already won a place at regionals by winning outright the RIIIPL-East title. Given the history of close, competitive play among Bridge, CESA, and DSC at this age group, it wasn't hard to understand how a relatively small factor could tip the scales.

Regardless, I'm a bit confused as to why the strong negative response to the "hot" comment made earlier. When I read it, it seemed to me that the point is simply being made that a one-and-done tournament format when there are closely matched teams may not yield the same result as a 2-out-of-3 (or whatever) format. Seemed to make inherent sense.

With regard to competitiveness, the goal differential for U15-U18 from 2004 through 2006 was as follows: 1.6, 2.4, and 2.0. This year for the first time the average goals against was effectively 0. The only final matches in which the goal differential was 3 or greater was U15B (CESA 3, MPSC 0), U18B (Bridge 3, CESA 0), and U18G (CESA 4, CUFC 0). Interestingly, a single CESA coach accounted for an impressive 7 point swing in the goal differential.

My apologies P&Y....I read more into it than there was.

I agree with your statement on the saturday game, it was one of the better ones this weekend

One thing that hasn't gotten much discussion with respect to the challenge cup results are the expectations with respect to each club.

For example, I was disappointed in CESA for not increasing their year-over-year number of finalists. I do believe that South Carolina soccer is measurably getting better and that CESA holding its level of performance in this area meant that the club did better, but in my opinion given the CESA goals of regional and national competitiveness they have to find ways of getting better faster. And while I was incredibly impressed with the sweep in the younger age groups last spring in terms of championships, I was disappointed that the club only secured four of the eight championships this year. Another disappointment was the club not exceeding the RIIIPL-East win/loss percentage average.

Is my disappointment "fair"? Absolutely not. I just had high expectations for the club. In my opinion, CESA is head and shoulders above any club in South Carolina -- I just want it to be even better. Winning an RIIIPL-East title and having 5 challenge teams make it to the semi-finals were part of some wonderful achievements.

I'm wondering what folks from other clubs, in particular CUFC and Bridge, thought in terms of their expectations. (Note: It would be great to hear from other folks at other clubs -- the problem is that at most other clubs people seem focused almost entirely on one or two teams instead of the club itself.) I know that before the season started there were those that expected much more parity this year; since that didn't occur, is there disappointment, acceptance of the status quo, overwhelming joy, or what?

Chico,

I agree with on the statement that CESA as a whole is head and shoulders above any other club in South Carolina. There is no doubt that their leadership and staff are top notch. On the girls side, there is no doubt that CESA is dominant. 3 out of 4 championships clearly shows that, but on the boys side, I believe that the parity is showing a little more. When you look at 4 different clubs winning a boys championship, that shows no dominance by anyone.

I am not wanting to dispute the power of CESA. I actually think that others are trying to bring together better players because of CESA's dominance. This may not be a club direction, but is definitely happening with individual teams.

The one thing that I think makes a big difference is the attitude of the clubs concerning the behavior of their players when representing the club. When my boys played with GFC, the expectations were high to not bring embarassment to the team/club while representing the club. This included tournaments (at hotels, fields...). I think having the deeper pool of players helps this because of competition for playing time, but not having as many players shouldn't allow the ethics of the program to slip. I have heard many coaches say that they are not the parent, they are the coach. I believe that many people mold and shape children as they grow and a partnership between the parents and a coaches can be invaluable.

Once again, I agree with you about the dominance of CESA, but I think that it is the open thinking of the leadership, their willingness to do what it takes to get better and their ability to let the coaches and coaching directors run the soccer side while the administration is done by the board. CESA (GFC was this way also) is the only club I have seen where the decisions for the teams are not driven by the desires of the people that volunteer to help the club.

From Day 1 of the CESA merger (my child came from St Giles), I have been impressed with and proud of the PROFESSIONAL quality of CESA. I think, as RCates noted, that is the reason CESA has had so much success. On the girls side this is emphatically the case. In fact, our girls complain that the parents are TOO quiet even during the matches. This comment was made as well by a ref at a tournament. Coaches coach, directors direct, and parents parent.

I was pleased that Bridge fielded a 15 and 17 group on the girls side this year..I think both finished third..It's not a championship but it's a start...Boys side has to be somewhat of a letdown after last year..As much as I would like to see this club grow in size..It is going to be a difficult task when you have clubs within twenty miles of each other that will not join the alliance...A few players seem to trickle over from MPSC and CUSC but to me..not nearly enough..Two examples of this was last spring at districts Bridge U13b and MPSC U13b both lost while playing at the same time and location and this past weekend we had Bridge U17G and MPSC U17G playing against each other for third and fourth place..These players need to be together.I would like or my expectation would be that players that live around twenty miles apart to come together and train..

Chico,
Don't be so hard on the club! You indicated that 5 Challenge level teams made it to the semis, and some may have made the finals. That is a true sign of the overall quality of CESA -not just attaining a few state championships and a PL championship. Given that the U17G final had 2 CESA teams is a prime example of the total quality of the club. Maybe some of those Challenge girls should have made the Premier team during tryouts....I don't know. I would much rather be involved with a club that considers every single boy or girl on the field, no matter the level of soccer, as someone who can contribute to the success of their club in their own respective manner. I would much rather be involved with a club that has say 4 or 5 state titles, and 5 Challenge teams in the semis; than a club that has 8 state titles, yet has no other successs at any lower level. That is the real sign of a quality club.

Chico,
what teams won Championships this past weekend? I can not find a complete listing of the Championship and finalist teams. Can you help a brother out?

"For example, I was disappointed in CESA for not increasing their year-over-year number of finalists."

Chico, what the heck would Jack Welch say about this!! Sounds like incrementalism to me......

"Coaches coach, directors direct, and parents parent"

now there's an idea...

>>[Steve] "Coaches coach, directors direct, and parents parent"<<

That's not Columbia-area soccer as I know it! Here it many times seems to be "Parents dictate, threaten, and micromanage, coaches suffer" or something along those lines.

>>[Big Daddy] Chico, what the heck would Jack Welch say about this!! Sounds like incrementalism to me......<<

Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

And yet the problem is that in trying to set a goal for state finalists when you have 75% of them gets to be tough. I think that 100% is a great "stretch" goal but the nature of soccer, and the "one and done" system of the state cup, makes that very, very tough to achieve. So I fell back to incrementalism to try to explain my disappointment.

The core reality of looking at only "in-state" goals is that with my CESA hat on I'd like to see CESA achieve higher finalists counts (i.e., have their premier and challenge teams in the finals as in the competitive U17G match). This is tough to do as well; this year CESA only had it occur in one age group/gender. But I like talking about and differentiating "in-state" goals versus "regional" or "national" goals because I think it gets you thinking more about the club as a whole and not just the "Premier" teams.

Again, I have high expectations for CESA. The truth is that getting five "Challenge" teams into the quarterfinals was a big accomplishment. But the club got six in last year, and of the 32 slots I was hoping to see a lot more challenge teams this year. To do this, CESA is going to have to be more consistent in terms of winning in the South Carolina Challenge League so that they get more favorable, and less intra-club, early seeding.

I was very disappointed in the state organization for not doing a better job of posting scores during the tournament.

>>[Flying Soccer] Chico what teams won Championships this past weekend? I can not find a complete listing of the Championship and finalist teams. Can you help a brother out?<<

Here's the data I have -- the format is bracket, winning club, losing club, winning team score, losing team score.

U15B: CESA MPSC 3 0
U15G: CESA CUFC 2 0
U16B: DSC CESA 1 0
U16G: CUFC CESA 1 0
U17B: LCSC CUFC 1 0
U17G: CESA CESA 1 0
U18B: Bridge CESA 3 0
U18G: CESA CUFC 4 0

>>[2004striker] Chico, Don't be so hard on the club!<<

I try to be equally hard on all of the clubs. I'm sure I fail at that and have biases, but my being hard on a club doesn't mean I don't think that the club is doing wonderful things. As I said, I'm impressed with CESA; I just want to see the club make greater gains and not rest on its laurels. And I'm not accusing CESA of resting on its laurels; I'm simply stating that I think that any organization can be and should be critically examined and be open to that examination if it's going to get better.

>>You indicated that 5 Challenge level teams made it to the semis, and some may have made the finals. That is a true sign of the overall quality of CESA -not just attaining a few state championships and a PL championship. Given that the U17G final had 2 CESA teams is a prime example of the total quality of the club.<<

I do agree with you that as a very good "intra-state" metric, the challenge teams making quarterfinals is a good one -- again, I just wish CESA had done better than that.

>>Maybe some of those Challenge girls should have made the Premier team during tryouts....I don't know. I would much rather be involved with a club that considers every single boy or girl on the field, no matter the level of soccer, as someone who can contribute to the success of their club in their own respective manner. I would much rather be involved with a club that has say 4 or 5 state titles, and 5 Challenge teams in the semis; than a club that has 8 state titles, yet has no other successs at any lower level. That is the real sign of a quality club.<<

I really do agree with the sentiment you are expressing. But let's turn it around. CESA had 6 challenge teams make the quarterfinals in fall 2005 and only 5 make it in fall 2006. Now, I'm not trying to say that this means there was a drop off, because I think statistically those are close enough to be a wash with that small a sample set. But I do think it's worth a discussion concerning how CESA can have more challenge teams get to the quarterfinals and semifinals.

The long-term answer to me is simple: CESA must increase the size of its recreation program. What I'm wondering about is how the club can make an impact on this in the next several years.

The long-term answer to me is simple: CESA must increase the size of its recreation program. What I'm wondering about is how the club can make an impact on this in the next several years.

The problem is not in the size of the rec program, but when it is time getting those kids over to the Academy Program. That is the trick.

bamr1: Benchmarking against CASL, I'm not sure about that conclusion...

We should not benchmark against CASL. They have a much larger population to draw from therefore a much larger rec program.

Talking Rec in Greenville what are the parents options; YMCA, Foothills, Greer, USA etc . . . Except for the YMCA the other clubs play in our Academy league.

I agree with you that building a bigger rec program gives you more kids feeding into the academy program. Thats a no brainer, but what I was trying to say is that the much bigger problem is getting parents to move their talented children out of the rec program and into the select academy program. This is an especially trying issue on the girls side of the equation. I used to think it was all about "education". Parents just did not know about the academy program. Although I still believe this to be a factor I am not as hung up on it as I was. Last year I assisted with handing out flyers to the girls (U8-U12 rec teams)and spoke very briefly with the parents and coaches. I expected at tryouts to see this overwhelming number of girls trying out at U-10 and U-11 and that just did not happen.

Chico,
did I see where you posted that CESA had 75% of the State Champions from the Fall Cup? Looking at your results posted above it looks to me like 50% (4 of 8) were CESA and the rest (4 of 8) from 4 other clubs. Is my math wrong or am I not seeing something with the Championships? thanks!!!

Mark Twain
--"The report of my death was an exaggeration"

CUFC dead? Hardly, but if I believed everything I read on this message board, I would be suprised that CUFC even HAD teams competing at the State Cup given the "sorry state" of soccer in Columbia.

(Remove tongue from being firmly planted in cheek!)

Seriously, did CUFC fall short/meet/exceed expectations? I don't know but my personal two cents is they suprised me in a good way on the girls side but I was diappointed on the boys results.

To have three finalists with the State Champions at U-16 on the girls side is a pleasant suprise. This is a testament to these young ladies and their coaches and all of their hard work throughout this fall season. CESA has certainly set the bar high on the girls side and they are to be congratulated on their continued winning ways with three champions but the showing by the CUFC girls in their first year hopefully bodes well for the future.

On the boys side, I had hoped for three finalists with a couple of champions. Unfortunately, that was not the case. The U-15s certainly underperformed in their upset loss to MPSC (the only upset of a CUFC team) and the U18 boys continued their "hard luck" experience in State Cup semifinals with a very tough loss to a gutty CESA Premier team in overtime. The U17 team acquitted themselves well with a 1-0 loss to a very good Lexington team in a game which had the potential to be a rough and tumble affair given the rivalry between these two teams. But, to the players on both sides credit it was an aggresive yet cleanly played game. Anyway, the boys side continues to show that they are competitive with other clubs in the state.

As RCates stated, parity is here on the boys side with champions from four diffrent clubs. Also, the results of the U17 and U18 support that fact as well--both of the finalists at U17 were the lower seeded teams and the semifinal games at U18 both went to OT with one of those to a shootout. (Did Clemson really end the game with only 8 players?)

Anyway, great soccer all around and all of these young men and women and their coaches are to be commended for the continued improvement in the level of play here in SC. The success of CESA has certainly caused SC soccer to get better--and not only in Greenville!

Flying Soccer: I'm pretty sure that I said that CESA had 75% of 2006 state challenge championships. If you could point out where I said 75% of only the fall state challenge championships, I'll be glad to acknowledge the error and correct it.

>>[bamr1] We should not benchmark against CASL. They have a much larger population to draw from therefore a much larger rec program.<<

Actually, Raleigh and Greenville in terms of metropolitan areas aren't that far apart compared to many clubs. However, the way you benchmark is by denominating over eligible people, i.e., people aged 5-18.

>>Talking Rec in Greenville what are the parents options; YMCA, Foothills, Greer, USA etc . . . Except for the YMCA the other clubs play in our Academy league.<<

Understood.

>>I agree with you that building a bigger rec program gives you more kids feeding into the academy program. Thats a no brainer, but what I was trying to say is that the much bigger problem is getting parents to move their talented children out of the rec program and into the select academy program. This is an especially trying issue on the girls side of the equation. I used to think it was all about "education". Parents just did not know about the academy program. Although I still believe this to be a factor I am not as hung up on it as I was. Last year I assisted with handing out flyers to the girls (U8-U12 rec teams)and spoke very briefly with the parents and coaches. I expected at tryouts to see this overwhelming number of girls trying out at U-10 and U-11 and that just did not happen. <<

You raise a great point. I had to focus on something else immediately after I posted my response to you and thought while doing it that I should have asked for more information. It's a fascinating perspective you have that the real problem is conversion of talented recreation players to academy and beyond. Let me ask you; have you shared this with the directors or anyone at CESA and gotten their perspective on this? Not doubting you...just wondering...

Regarding CASL, I just stumbled across this on the NC message boards:

While CASL has 26 HS-age (U15-18) Classic teams this year, they also have 47 HS-age rec teams (admittedly these play 9-a-side, but at least they have somewhere to play) and 53 Challenge teams (though a couple from FVAA and TUSA are in that count).

Chico,

After the first cut of ODP NCYSA has something like 75 field players and 10 keepers in my sons age group. After the first cut!!!!!

For SC to get more competitve we need more kids playing rec soccer at U6. We need to identify the better players and get them playing in an Academy environment at U8ish. We need to double the amount of home grown "elite" players (those legitimately capable of starting on a competitive Challenge team). We need a Premier outlet of more than 1 CLub or 2 to showcase those players.

You correctly took me to task last week for allowing incremental goal setting to limit my ability to serve the market. So how about this? Rather than just CESA and Bridge with an ersatz CUFC thrown in for good measure.....

If your goal is to GROW SC soccer......you need whole organizations like CESA in every major "metro" area of the state. York County, Columbia, GSP, Grand Stand, Charleston. Imagine if you had 5 CESA's instead of 2? Imagine the players that would be created within the Palmeto state?

If you limit yourself to CESA and Bridge and CUFC......

And if your central argument regarding constraints on elite player develoipment being the development of rec programs....well, how will CESA grow rec programs in York COunty? Or how will Bridge effect what is happening in Hilton Head or N. Myrtle BEach?

If you assume a static player pool.....then 2, maybe 3 "super clubs" is probably the way to go. But..........I would argue that if you create 2-3 super CLubs.....you will condemn yourself to a static player pool.

If you want a vibrant and growing player pool......you need competitive places for them to play.

8 NC Super CLubs: CASL, CSC, CUFC, SCSA, Greensboro, Goldstar, TFC, Triangle United.

2 SC Super CLubs: CESA and Bridge

7 NC Medium CLubs: FCCA, N Meck, MUSA, HFC, Winston Salem, FVAA, Cape Fear

2 SC Medium CLubs: CUFC, Mount Plesant

Bridge- Super Club?

Daddy,

Not sure that Chico is sold on the fact that York County has a population significant enough to support a super club. He's done some demographic analysis before and I think, in his eyes, the numbers come up short.

Personally, I'd like to think in terms of quality...not quantity. Are the facitlities, coaching and infrastructure there??? I believe so but everyone would have to get on the same page. Would the recreational base be as large as what CESA and CASL have...probably not.

Chico,

here is where I got the 75% number from it comes from the website that you link in your first post in this thread:

CESA: CESA continues to dominate South Carolina youth soccer in 2006 producing 50% of all finalists (the same as in 2005) and achieving an all-time high in terms of champions (75%). The major question at CESA with respect to continued improvement within the state is how to improve its Challenge and Classic teams such that they are either consistently the second or third best team in South Carolina

I guess my error is that when I read/hear 2006 Championships I am thinking Fall. I think the 75% must come from Spring and Fall 2006. My mistake in reading something but not reading it.

thanks for correcting me. I bow to the master of the message board!

Well, forget YC for a second, 'cause my point is more than that.

Do you look at how things are and try to build on the status quo? I would think this is what Chico referred to as incrementalism.

Or, do you scrap what you have and throw away the roadmap....and start all over.

Who woulda thunk a few years ago......that St Giles and GFC would merge and change the landscape of SC soccer? Who'd a thunk....that a year later a different model named Bridge would spring up in a different part of the State?

I'm simply saying.....that the potential is there in all the places I named......to do what CESA has done. For all their talk of bringing in players from outside of the GSP area, understand that those teams are still overwhelmingly populated by kidd from the GSP area. They have outperformed Columbia and Charleston because of better organization and vision. No magic....nothing in the water.

So go back to Chico's stated desire which is getting more kids playing soccer and developing more top level players as a by product of that......its like in manufacturing: you don't PUSH a product thru.....you PULL it thru.

Top down focus on the process will produce the same results. Then 5-6 years from now....maybe SC will have 1/2 the players in NC and not 20% as many.

Big Daddy
Take off those U13 goggles that are obscuring your overall vision--that Bridge U13 Boys team is killer no doubt about it---but have you not seen the results of the recent State Cup. Unfortunately for Bridge, no teams qualified for Premier at the Cup. To say that CUFC sits behind Bridge as a "medium club" in lieu of the results of this weekend would appear to reflect a negative bias towards CUFC for some reason.
The balance of quality Boys AND Girls teams from U14-U18 makes your position difficult to understand--now the U13 Boys and Girls have some work to do---that may be the source of your reasoning.

Daddy,
I did thunk as many others in the midlands also did thunk that when GFC & St. Giles merged, that it was not gonna be pretty, especially after already done been losing to GFC or St. Giles from 2000 to 2003. CESA will continue to sustain their early successes, but I wonder if Bridge will?

I gots a headache.....

Bridge U13 girls are pretty good.....in addition to the boys. Also U14 boys are good......U16 boys.

If you want to slide them from "Super' club to on par with CUFC or Mount Pleasant.....it doesn't change my point.

Which is, when compared to NC we have proportionally fewer great CLubs and very good clubs than they do.

Futbol.....gets you sum aspern

Bridge is not a Super Club - may actually collapse before next fall.

Whether the "alliance" structure that Bridge is built upon is stable in the long-term or not...and whether Bridge "collapses" before next fall or not...

I don't think that there's any doubt that CUFC has established a strong #2 position in the state, and moreover has done so in multiple dimensions. The club is the second largest in terms of players, it was the second largest in terms of fielded select teams, it was the second largest in terms of teams that made it into the state challenge tournament, and it had the second largest number of finalists in the challenge cup.

The things that CUFC is typically criticized for on this board are real, specifically that their "B" and "C" team average performance was abysmal (note: I hope that stating this fact does not cause anyone else to express the wish that they could run over Chico with their truck!). That's a compelling argument if you have a child in Columbia not in the top 15-20 players in the area that wants to play -- CRSA and LCSC seem to be tremendously more focused on that next 30-40 players.

However, that criticism shouldn't be confused with the fact that CUFC is fielding more teams across more age brackets and genders than any club in the state (with one exception) and is by far the second-most "complete" club in terms of its offerings.

For several years now that I've compiled data I've warned that it's more important to look at finalists than to look at state champions because of the size of the data set. Look at the finalists charts -- while CUFC hasn't broken away clearly from the pack, they have established a strong uptrend (with help from their constituent clubs) from their nadar in most of the decade and have approximately matched what their constituent clubs accomplished in 1999. More importantly, they did that in a much more competitive environment.

Now, did the results of the challenge cup meet most CUFC parents' expectations? No, not from what I'm getting via e-mail and verbally. But I think this is more of a problem of leadership setting the expectation that the club would achieve parity with CESA, or even match the finals performance of Bridge in its freshman year. The gulf between the CESA and the other clubs in the state is vast; and yet that shouldn't and doesn't mean that CUFC shouldn't be recognized for what they accomplished.

Will CUFC experience a sophomore slump? I don't know. Will Bridge rebound and continue to increase the completeness of their program? I don't know. But taking a snapshot right now at the aggregate club level, CUFC leads the pack when you exclude CESA.

Swimmer,

Is there something to back up your statement?

Flying Soccer: My fault for not being clear enough -- sorry about that!

Big Daddy: If you look at what CESA actually did, it was consolidate two very successful clubs into a single even more successful club. Is that difficult? Absolutely; as a merger it should probably be written up for the Harvard Business Review. But SGU and GFC were both individually dominating South Carolina soccer before CESA.

I'm not against having "super-clubs" in any area that would support them. But I think that trying to create a new club out of two or more mediocre clubs, while possibly allowing for synergy, even more allows for the perpetuation of mediocrity and begs for anarchy.

The best reason for organizations to merge is because they decide that despite their best efforts, they can meet their ambitions faster by merging than through organic growth. But of course the prerequisite is that the clubs have ambitions outstripping their current capabilities. While I see some wonderful teams out there, I don't see a lot of clubs with the ambition that might make a merger successful.

I personally (and I understand that it's very debatable) think that a simpler and more direct course is for at least one club in each area to gain that ambition and begin offering superior and unique services to recreation and select players. Until this happens, I don't see a merger doing anything for many areas beyond limiting the diversity of their "soccer ecosystem" and decreasing the odds that a local club will "catch" ambition.

Having been involved in the past with 3 different area clubs and obnoxiously ranting for a Cola area merger for 3 years, I am not one to criticize Cola. area soccer. I am only interested in seeing CUFC succeed in an outrageous manner. (So that we can one day dominate that Evil Red Machine from that cold northern region).
But how quickly assessments can change when you win a few games in the state cup in the course of a weekend...........

Chico <<Okay...getting past the fact that there seems to be a disaster here in Columbia beyond the worse expectations of anyone...Columbia now has a "merged super-club" that is performing not only worse than CESA and Bridge did in their first year but is performing worse than LCSC and CRSA. I can't imagine anyone thinks that CUFC should split up; so the question is how does the club radically change its direction such that its results radically change.
What has gone so wrong here? How can it be fixed so that the youth of the Columbia area have better options in the near-term future?
It seems to me that the first step is admitting that there is a problem, and the second step is deciding what the root causes of the problem are.>>

futbol << If you gave out a letter grade based on performance on the latest data (supplied to chico for inclusion)
clubs with min 30 games played
Bridge - A
CESA - A
MPSC - B
LCSC - C
CSC - F
CUFC - F >>

I still believe that we cannot truly even begin to say that CUFC is on the right track until the lower level Challenge and upper level Classic teams produce much better results than those listed below.
CUFC Division Rankings:
Classic Girls-
U15 12th of 12 teams
U16 4 of 5
Challenge Girls
U13 5 of 5
U14 3 of 9
U15 5 of 6
U16 6 of 6
U17 2 of 7 B team 7 of 7
U18 5 of 7
Classic Boys-
U13 14 of 14
U15 10 of 13
U16 6 of 11
Challenge
U13 5 of 7
U14 2 of 10 B Team 9 of 10
U15 6 of 6
U16 4 of 8
U17 1 of 7 B Team 6 of 7
U18 2 of 8 B Team 8 of 8
Premier League
Girls
U18 9 of 10
U16 11 of 12
U15 10 of 10
Boys
U15 7 of 10

When CUFC leadership begins to address and focus on the success of the lower level teams (whose players pay about the same as the upper level teams), then CUFC can be used in the same sentence with that evil CESA club.

For someone to make such a bold statement about the Bridge collapsing, they would have to have some inside information that only the privileged few would have.
Anyway I think that the Bridge would continue to improve its completeness in the next season. As parents realized that each club by themselves cannot offer the kind of program that is required to compete with CUFC and CESA they would continue to seek out the Bridge Program.
Until Charleston clubs can come together, CESA and CUFC would dominate. The Charleston area clubs are doing a considerable disservice to the kids they are serving by not allowing the more talented kids to play together.

soccerislife: There are Charleston area clubs not allowing more talented kids to play together? How do they enforce that?

soccerislife, there is another possibility for a person to be able to say something like that.

A person that has been around the soccer community in the low country and to have either experienced or been in the aftermath of the merge of Hungry Neck with MP and also the rise and fall of Trident United. Speculation mixed with a few key events/statments, forms a pretty solid basis to make such a strong statement.

I have heard about the CESA U-17 girls game at State Cup. Seems to me that they were not as well matched as originally thought. I heard that the Challenge team packed 7 & 8 in the box the whole game. What would have happened if they would have played soccer. I believe the premier team would have won by 5 or 6 goals. I understand that this method may have won the game,and I do say may.

Look at it, you try to go to overtime and to PK's to win. Remember, this premier team has been tested in many games against the best in the country. As I understand it, the keeper for the premier hardly touched the ball all game and only made a save or two, while the keeper for the challenge team made great saves the whole game. I think we forget the abilities these players have. I don't know who the keeper is for the premier team, but I know that when it was her time to perform she stepped up and made the play.

That is the different between premier teams and challenge team, players that are asked to perform in overwelming circumstances. Where ever this premier keeper plays HS soccer it would be worth the price of admission to watch her play. It like watching the last shot in a basketball game or a last second field goal. The pressure is on.

Great job to both U-17 girls keepers. From one who knows.

You would win the opportunity to

Nice article in the Charlotte Observer last week on Dom Wren and the Discoveries U-16 boys:

Posted on Thu, Dec. 14

SCHOOL AND CLUB TEAMS
Coach wins his 2nd title of 2006

DENNY SEITZ
dseitz@charlotteobserver.com

ROCK HILL - The past year has gone by too fast for Northwestern High soccer coach Dominic Wren.

After a springtime that included the school's first soccer state championship, Wren will end the year with memories of another championship fresh on his mind.

The Rock Hill-based Discoveries Soccer Club's Under-16 team became state champions Sunday when it defeated a pair of national powerhouses in the semifinals and finals.

The team, known as Mutiny, beat Bridge Football Club 2-1 in the semis and then downed Carolina Elite Soccer Academy 2-1 in the finals.

Mutiny had lost to both Greenville-area teams by lopsided scores earlier in the season.

"We'd never beaten either of the teams," Wren said. "And we had a rough season. Really, this is amazing," he said.

Mutiny, composed of players from Rock Hill, York and Fort Mill, began play in August with the state championship as a goal. It was reasonable because five underclassmen from the Northwestern High team that went 26-2 were also playing for Mutiny.

But six losses and six ties in 29 games left Wren fearing the team was better than average but not quite championship material.

Things gelled at the perfect time.

"We just started playing well," said Wren, whose team gets a break now while high school soccer is under way. Mutiny will resume play with a regional championship match in Oklahoma City in June.

"The way it works out is great," said Wren, the only coach to win a state high school championship and club championship the same season.

The championship was clinched on a late goal by sophomore Robbie Benson. Another star on the team was Enzo Martinez, who earned S.C. High School Player of the Year honors last year, his freshman season.

Martinez is young but already getting lots of attention from Division I college coaches, Wren said.

Most of Martinez's 2006 teammates at Northwestern High graduated to college soccer scholarships, including eight teammates who all went to Spartanburg Methodist together.

"In high school, we wanted to win for the seniors," Martinez said. "It was all about believing in each other and believing in team. We've done that in club too. I could have played a lot better than I did, but we won the championship. That's what our goal was."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Denny Seitz: 803-327-8500 ext. 31