SC Soccer Forums SCSoccer.com Forums Club Soccer & ODP relegation/promotion

I looked at GA's U14 Boys classic teams wondering how their team faired in different divisions. Across divisions I - V, they have 65 teams. Most divisions have about 11 teams. Focusing on their Division I & II (as a surrogate to SC's Challenge level, two teams went 0-10 and had average goal differentials per game of -3.6 and -4.8. The next lowest winning team in Division I & II went 2-7-1 with a average goal differentials per game of -1.9. On the other end of the spectrum, there were four Division II, III, and IV teams with a winning percentage >= 0.85 and an average goal differentials per game ranging from 2.6 to 3.2.

In SC there are 78 teams in U13/U14 classic/challenge last fall. In classic teams, there were 8 teams with winning percentages > 0.83 with goal differentials of 2.62, 2.67, 4, 4.17, 4.42, 4.67, 5.11, and 6.08. On the lower end in the challenge division, the lower goal differntial generally topped out at -2.13 with two team in the -5s.

My take is that SC club/teams (at U13/U14) have generally be able to judge whether they can be competitive in challenge level soccer.

And of the 47 classic teams, there are relatively few whose record and goal differential might suggest they're candidates considering challenge down the road.

Does SC need mandatory promotion/relegation -- based on this data I say no. (I don't really like being told what to do either.)

Should SCYSA consider whether to create a third division at the U13/U14 level? And to avoid too many repeat games, perhaps provide some "cross-over" games. Taking U13B for instance where we had 7 challenge and 12 classic teams last fall, leave the 7 in challenge and break the 12 classic teams into two divisions (classic I and II), and schedule some challenge vs classic I games as well as some classic I vs classic II games.

Would this work?
How would state cup time work out?
How many teams does one need to form a third division?
Would creating a 3rd division bring more teams to consider "converting from rec to classic"?
Would this be good for player development?

I want to see teams competing in divisions that are reasonably competitive. I know that there will always be winners and there will always be losers. That's why we play. I only start thinking about this when an undefeated team doesn't move up, or a winless team doesn't move down.

I'm not sure SC can currently support three division in "select" soccer. At the U-13 and U-14 divisions, there are almost enough teams, but we're not quite there yet. In a few years, I think we'll be there (unless Chico's dire predictions about the future of SCYSA come to fruition).

If a third (lower) division of travel club soccer were to form, I'd like to see this at a more regional level. If I were a parent of a player just looking to upgrade a bit from rec league, but wasn't quite ready for the big leagues, I'd like to know that I wouldn't have to travel every weekend covering an area from Greenville to Charleston. Unfortunately, that breaks it down even further, and you would need even more teams to form divisions of reasonable numbers in each region.

But, as we all know, any parent who thinks his or her child is ready to move up from rec league is keenly aware of the fact that this child is only one step away from being the next Freddy Adu. No need to waste time with this regional semi-select stuff. On to the premier league.

>>[lurker] In a few years, I think we'll be there...<<

Based on what?

U/13 - We are playing in the U-13 Challenge Division this Spring. If my child played for Aiken I would not be happy in the Classic League, beating teams week after week 9 to 0, however I think where a team plays is a coaches decision. However, now that we have play beyond the state cup level at Classic, maybe some of those teams that stayed back in Classic rather than Challenge are dreaming of going beyond just South Carolina.

My disappointment with the Spring Season has to do with the number of games we are playing. Initially there were 7 teams in our division and so we were looking at playing everyone twice for 12 games total. Now we have 8 teams so we will only play 7 matches. One of the Bridge teams is actually playing their entire season in one month. Could we not limit the Challenge Division to a certain number of teams and then say, the top 8 teams or 7 teams that apply are in that division. Whatever number selected would be a number that would produce the teams playing each other 2 times, for 12 or 14 games total. The top teams would be determined based on the fall results - With teams that played in the Challenge division having priority over teams that played in the Classic division. This would avoid the "Mandatory" label of promotion/relegation Chico does not like.

(Chico) Based on what?

My original prediction was based on nothing more than wishful thinking and completely unsubstantiated circumstantial evidence. Our club's rec numbers have been increasing. We fielded more classic teams this year than ever before. We even had to cut a few kids at try-outs, which has never happened before. Obviously, we're growing. Additionally, the divisions that I've coached in the last few years have gotten bigger.

Now, I know that won't satisfy your lust for numbers, so I dug into the archives at hotstat. Looking at just U13 + U14, boys + girls, classic only, the following are the number of teams:

2003 Fall: 34
2004 Spring: 33
2004 Fall: 41
2005 Spring: 39
2005 Fall: 41
2006 Spring: 40
2006 Fall: 47
2007 Spring: 41

With the exception of that last data point, that's some evidence of yearly growth. If it continues (and that's a big if), we will someday have enough for a third division.

In any case, I'm not giving up on wishful thinking.

Lurker: Thanks for digging the statistics out. Unfortunately, In my view, I see a different picture with the numbers. There is clearly a jump in Fall 2004, and to me there seems to be an outlier this past fall. Although I dont have the statistics to document the cause, one possible item causing the jump in F2004 might be the formation of CESA. (I wish the spring 2007 #s weren't back to the baseline of fall 2004 through spring 2006.)

bamr1: I also become uncomfortable when the teams I root for tend to get up by five goals, one, because I empathize for the other team's moral, but two, my kid probably didn't improve his skills. (I'm not for implementing a mercy rule because I see that as worse.) Within the current structure, I agree that placing teams in challenge or classic is a coach/team/club decision (and not SCYSA). My view is that unless you're playing in the top division available to you that a winning percentage between .33 - .66 is ideal for player development.

I guess, that I'm inclined to think that SCYSA ought to form a 3rd division, even if only on an experimental basis for say two years for U13/U14, and promote cross division play if there are not enough teams. (Only doing it for one year would not probably allow enough time to evaluate the impact.) My thinking is that we might get some more teams created at the lower end willing to consider competitive play instead of recreation soccer, and perhaps over the long term result in more teams being able to play at the challenge level. This might mean that the smaller local clubs will have to become more creative in encouraging 7th &8th graders to play club soccer in the spring in addition or in lieu of JV, but I dont see it as a bad thing .. just another challenge. I could see some creative scheduling in the 3rd division for more regional play, but ultimately, I think the teams need to be prepared for two road trips (i.e., travel to upper or lower state from Columbia, or travel to Columbia from upper/lower state).

Am I kidding myself, and this would essentially create a state wide recreation league (which might not be of value)? Or, would it help promote player development?

Ay!!!..Coach P.... The dreaded 7th and 8th grader participating in JV/Varsity.

To me it is simple, these age groups have no business playing JV and/or varsity (whether the school can field a team or not)

A distinction was made that only 9th graders and up can play Varsity (SCHSL - not SCISA) because it is a contact sport. Yet the same group allows a 12 year old to play against a 17 junior in a JV match. Why would it be different?

U14 and below challenge level players should play only club ball. Classic level players should not play school simply because there is no benefit and the chance for injury is greater.

Futbol:
For a lot, maybe even most, of these players, the attraction of playing for their school is extremely strong. Stronger in some communities than others. We lost 3 starters from the Fall who did not want to play both and opted for school soccer over club. The rest are all playing Varsity, JV, or Middle School. We would have lost most of the rest and would not have been able to field a team in the Spring if we told them they could not play both.

My recommendation is for SCYSA to move the U13/U14 Cup season to the Fall just like U15-U18.

But both your idea and mine are wishes. Getting the schools or SCYSA to change is a whole different ballgame. For now, we have to deal with the reality of dual participation.

So only rec players should play JV? Sounds like a club coach angry over missing some players. Tell me the Mauldin, Irmo, and Riverside JV players aren't fantastic and getting extra reps in to improve themselves. Tell me they aren't quality teams. Boooo I say to you.