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.

futbol: you will not get any disagreement from me on this issue, but it's a reality that exists. And I agree with Coach P, my kid's teacher has a lot of influence on what he thinks and does.

While minimum rules are needed for safety (lord knows there are some idiots out there), and I'm not qualified to speak about 7/8th graders playing JV -- I'll leave that to others.

But for the same reason I do not support mandatory relegation/promotion (I do not believe in a one-size fits all type of rules and dont really like people telling me what to do), I do not believe I would support a rule that says 7/8th graders shouldn't play JV soccer.

I'd rather see SCYSA go out and look for ways to encourage more participation in recreation (not a topic of this thread) and competitive soccer within the state. At this time, that job is fully on local and regional clubs through mostly organic growth. Let the market forces judge what is better, but right now it seems that SCYSA is loosing that battle based on current numbers.

I propose that we might be at that time to expand our divisions at the younger ages (U13/U14). And my next thought is for SCYSA to start stumping the YMCAs and local recreation programs that are not part of SCYSA to put together select teams from their existing rec teams that can participate within the newly created 3rd division. Somehow I would think SCYSA could find a way to register the teams for insurance purposes without the administrative hurdles of forming new clubs (BODs, bylaws, etc.) by creating a state-wide electronic club for this purpose, and make it financially appealing to these non-SCYSA affiliated programs to try it out.

Whatever happened to being happy that a player is simply having fun with soccer, regardless of where she plays? For purely selfish reasons would we try to demean one over the other, especially at such a young age. Enjoy them playing instead of ridiculing who they choose. Boooooooo!!!

Whiskey,

I am very glad they are playing and certainly did not intend to be demeaning one over the other. And this is not just a club coach who is upset over losing players. During the time when the SCHSL had the no-dual-participation rule, one of my daughters chose club over JV and the other chose JV. So that is not my issue.

All I was trying to say is that I am concerned that the players will get burned-out or their grades will suffer and for either of these reasons they might quit soccer or lose their enthusiasm for it. 10-14 club games plus club tournaments plus 12 JV games plus JV tournaments is a LOT of soccer during a 2-3 month period. My concern is for the kids' health, well being, and continued love for the game.

I'm not sure if the effect of playing both school and U13-U14 club soccer in the Spring is the same all over the state, but here are some of the things that effect us in the Richland/Lexington county area:

- 7th and 8th graders are allowed to play varsity at the SCISA schools: Cardinal Newman, Hammond, and Heathwood Hall.
- 7th and 8th graders are allowed to play JV at the Richland 1, Lexington/Richland 5, and all Lexington County School Districts.
- 7th and 8th graders in Richland 2 are not allowed to play JV if their middle school has a team. I believe all of the Richland 2 middle schools have both boys and girls teams. The middle schools involved are Blythewood, Dent, E L Wright, Kelly Mill, Summitt.

Very interesting and complex when you are coaching a team affected by all of the above. My team has players from 10 different schools in all 3 of the above situations. Those on the middle school teams are least affected. They have games at 3:00 PM and have no conflicts with club team practices. Those playing JV and Varsity have mid-week games at night which conflict with traditional club practice times. Makes for quite a juggling act.

Coach P - very good point regarding the number of games that middle school kids will play this spring. This is certainly a concern. My daughter could play close to 40 games between February - May. Fortunately, JV games are 30 minute halves and she shouldn't play more than half of a game.

futbol - could it be possible that a high school JV or varsity coach could ever be a "step up" from a player's club coach?

I think ability to play both club and high school ball depends entirely on the player and the location. For some people, it would involve burnout and the possibility of lower grades, but for others, it doesn't necessarily mean the same thing.

I played varsity soccer for Ashley Hall in 7th and 8th grades as well at Mount Pleasant - Hungryneck and while it involved an immense amount of running around and participation on my parents' parts, I enjoyed it up until the end half of the season and that was a result of my club coach, not burnout. (Granted, this was way back in 98-99/99-00)

Two days a week, I'd hitch a ride with one of the juniors or seniors to varsity practice, practice hard there until I had to leave 15-30 minutes early when my parents showed up. Then we'd drive from Johns Island to Patriots for my full club practice. High school games were on weekdays, so sometimes I'd miss a club practice for a game, but the only other time I had a conflict was during the Rotary Classic.

At this point, Ashley Hall didn't travel hardly except for the playoff games and I think, my 8th grade year at least, they returned to the playoffs after some long period, so this doesn't necessarily apply to much more active teams. But I started almost every game for Ashley Hall and would play much of the duration and played much of my club season until my coach decided that he didn't like me playing with another team. After that first year, I ended up playing U16 at Mount Pleasant so there was no conflict in 8th grade--my 12 year old mind had delusions of being a 6 year starter for the varsity and senior captain...excepting the part where I left for high school to BE and then to Wando.

At any rate, it is possible to play varsity as a 7th and 8th grader, but probably not for everyone. Doubling up was hard work, but in my situation it mostly worked out thanks to my school and our SCISA games and game times. Even for playing JV and club though, it takes an understanding of what you're getting into, both effort and time-wise, and coaches on both sides who understand and support what you're doing to enough of a degree that they won't needlessly punish you.

JV programs back when I was that age weren't big enough to attract players from Mount Pleasant at that age, so we were lucky not to have to face any team time conflicts. And I know that it's been a long time since I played and the rules have changed, but I wanted to point out that it is possible to do so, maybe not for many anymore without the perfect conditions, but it is.

Catching my consistency, Hurst???

The answer is yes, Phil Savitz at Irmo, Finotti at Riverside, Frederick- Irmo, Hiller - Chapin, Heise - BC and others.

My point was not to state that they should not play JV because the coach is horrible (and I think you would agree that capable school coaches are not the standard at either JV or Varsity). My point was to agree with Coach P that it is too much to ask of a 7th and 8th grader.

The issue is who it affects and how it is presented.

Who does it affect- 7th and 8th graders who are SKILLED soccer players. Lets face if the numbers are available, you will select the best player ...PERIOD.
How is it presented - the most stated reason told me - "I want to play for my school". This is not true, they are not playing for the middle school they are playing for the high school with the majority of the players not even in the same social group.

So what is the problem with this? - 2 issues

1- if it is a contact sport at the varsity level, what is different in the game at the JV level?
2- if you made the JV team it is because you are capable of playing. A concept that will not escape the Junior playing JV on the other side of the ball who is tired of being made to look stupid. Simple math - Junior is 5'10" 150 lbs the 8th grader 5' 4" 120lbs (wet).

Lets use the example a couple of seasons ago when Jamal blew out his knee. He did it playing an overzelous inferior player on an inferior team. All the player was trying to do is win the ball because he was tired of everyone laughing.

ON THE OTHER HAND - if there are Middle school teams (so called C teams) then no I would consider the coaching.

How about asking the question like this.... If johnny/sallie can play varsity soccer at 12, why not play U18/17 club ball?

I agree with you futbol....good points. Size matters. Just because you have U-18/varsity skills, doesn't mean you belong in a U-18/varsity game when you are 12 years old.

Would you agree with me that the argument from the girl's side is a little different from the boy's side?

#1 - The size differential between an 8th grade girl and a senior in HS is not as significant.

#2 - Girls really appreciate the social aspect of the sport and feel connected to the high school. JV (middle school) girls love riding the bus and hanging out with the older players, some of which are their siblings.

If the kid is good enough, why not? If you're going to argue on weight and size, then why not prevent true 18 year olds who are 5'4'' and 120 pounds from playing too? They might be going up against bigger players and get hurt. The bone development isn't finished in some 8th graders, true (and some growth plates in girls don't stop growing until they're 21), but the size differential might not change between an 8th grader and a 12th grader going up against someone bigger than them.

There is always a risk of injury when you play against anyone, especially someone larger than yourself, but that's a risk you (and your parents) have to take for yourself. If the player is good enough to handle the skill level of an older age group and their parents support it, aside from club regulations designed to keep good players in their age groups, there shouldn't be a reason to keep them from playing to a level that best challenges them. Yes, there will always be that reckless player who's out to hurt people...but they'll hurt you whether you're 12 or 17 for the simple reason that they're being reckless and uncaring.

There aren't that many kids who could try out for and make a U17 team at 12 anyway, so letting the parents decide that if their child is good enough to be challenged at that level shouldn't be too big of a leap.

That said as well...some 8th graders are 14 and some 15. Age-wise they could play varsity if they were good enough and a grade higher. How are we to determine whether or not they're capable of playing up simply by grade? Freddy Adu was 14 when he signed to play professional ball. He obviously had the skill to play enough to get developed at that level rather than at U14 club soccer or a JV team. Bobby Convey signed at 16, I believe. Both of them play and practice with men twice their age and with, likely, large size differentials.

Restricting play completely to ages disregards the fact that there are those who can play at a higher level AND contribute, despite their size or youth and it could possibly deny them a better challenge or development for them. If the player could be selected for and play on a U17 team and be challenged versus driving two hours north to be challenged on another team, most parents I know would choose the more local option. The choice should be one left to parents' evaluations of their children and coaches evaluations of their players. If the kid can play, unless s/he has some health problems, the kid should be able to play at whatever level best suits them.

Ain't it funny how these threads inevitably wander over to the topics we like to rehash from time to time.

This thread started about promotion / relegation. The number of posts, sorted by subject:

3 Promotion / Relegation
3 Growth of soccer / third division
14 Club vs. JV

How can we steer this to what's really important (e.g. The Redneck League, The Evil Red Empire, The Best Player in the State, The Worst Referee...)

l: took the words out of my mouth, or off the tips of my fingers.

What are some of the advantages and disadvantages to playing up a year in age?

Kitten.... The exception to the rule is exactly that an exception. You cannot possibly believe that because of one rare find that all are the same. Adu's brother will be playing at George Mason University next fall, guess what...he cannot drive himself he is only 15.

The problem is to make sure the individual in question is MATURE physically and/or psychologically to handle the event. It is up to the coaches to make sure that is the case, a 5'4" 120 lbs 18 year old knows exactly what he is in for. Your argument, to me, does not appear to hold water in other sports. Simply they would not be selected.

Hurst....Girls...absolutely different story, speed/size is less of a concern. But then we continue to make exceptions

Regarding playing up...I am a strong believer that there are many advantages to playing up. I also believe that it is MY DUTY to determine IF playing up is the right thing for the player. This should not be taken lightly. If the player is selected to play up, then they MUST PLAY and not sit on the bench. I actually challenge my girls by playing up often, only because I know we are competitive, otherwise I would not.

And Lurker/Greengrass....sorry ...I was tyring to agree with a comment and it exploded on me.

I was under the imopression that there are many levels in club soccer. Premier, challenge, classic, and academy/developmental.

When it comes to high school and club, many high schools place their teams in club level in the off-season. Some high schools benefit from their kids playing classic becasue then the high school coach (who doesn't have to be licensed) can take all the training that the club coach (who has to be licensed and is usually a better coach) and translate that into a winning season with little or no effort.

Gotta love it!!!

futbol,

How does my arguement not make sense? What you said is exactly what I explained as my point.

The point of my entire arguement was that there should not be a full on ban against being able to play at a higher level due to age, but that it should be left up to the parents to decide whether or not to allow their child to go out for a team (risk, skill, travel, money, other factors) and up to the coaches to decide whether or not the player is capable of participating with the team (skill, attitude, personality, etc.). That allows the exceptions to play up and those who cannot to play in their own age groups because they will not be selected for the older team.

My bringing up the size with regards to age was simply to point out that an arguement purely against size was not infallible being that pure size differential exists at any age. I felt it served as a point that such a strict delineation could not properly serve players or teams and that it should be left, as I said, to the parents as to whether to allow the children to play up or not and to the coaches as to whether or not they select them for the team.

Fan,

The real goal would be to have a competitive enough program to have your entire high school team playing together at the CHALLENGE level. Home run here if the kids can benefit from both a very good club coach and a very capable high school coach. NOTE: It is hard to be competitive at the challenge level if you are going to restrict your team geographically to one school district.

And I'd like to note I wasn't involved in this drift—

Hurst,

Perhaps a more achievable goal would be to have your HS team all playing club soccer, period, let alone Challenge level. There are some teams that have that, and they get talked about quite often.

I have to chime in and agree with what Addidaskitten is saying. Having also had the opportunity for my child to do the same thing. He was able to play and contribute on the HS Varsity team as a 7th grader, became a starter as an 8th grader, and has 3 SCISA State Championships as a Sophomore. So in addition to competitive club play, he has been able to gain other field positional experience against faster, stronger players. I think it has contributed greatly to his overall development.

Were we concerned about burn out and injury, absolutely. However, we put the faith in our coaches, both club and HS, to have his interest in mind. When they noticed he was tiring near the end of the season, we cut it back. Interestingly, once the rest of the team realized at practices he could in fact play and hold his own, they not only involved him, but also "watched out" for him on the field. When the HS match was very physical, the coach wouldn't put him in.

I've found this debate interesting every year, and in the end, if the player is ready and committed, and the coaches are mindful of the play on the field, it can work. Is it for everyone, no.

As for physical size, if you put Convey in with most U16 teams with their backs to you, you couldn't pick him out.

Now for a comment related to the topic.

Right now the SCYSA has the responsibility of trying to keep it competitive for the entire group. Within their responsibility exists the authority, within USYSA guidance, to develop the policies. Clubs have the choice of whether or not to become and remain organizational members of the SCYSA, and yes it looks like they have a monopoly. However, with that said, they also have to keep the members thoughts in mind. If enough of the membership was to draft a proposal for promotion/relegation and work through the proper channels then maybe it would work.

Most competitive leagues around the world, and even in other states, have some mechanism for promotion and relegation, where it's in the rules, and if you want to particpate, that's what is followed. You would end up with some very good matches with teams facing relegation. As an example, look at the current U16 boys, with DSC, CESA, and Bridge. Taking nothing away from the finals, the semi-finals for two years have been great matches, because they have been fighting for the automatic spot in RIIIPL. If you were to make it such that a team had to earn and maintain a spot in higher league, then the competitive level would increase with it. That assumes however that the parents in general see that highly competitive matches, even with losses, is better for Johnnie/Susie than blowing out a team and winning a title. I've known some teams in the past that have had confidence issues. What was the solution, drop down to Classic and blow everyone out and win a title, and then move back up. This decision was made by the coach/club. While it helped their teams confidence, it was at the expense of the other teams.

Players are members of clubs and clubs are members of the SCYSA. Until we break the feelings of this is "my" team, and what's best for my team is what the SCYSA needs to do, then, we will continue to trail other states.

I guess that may have been a little off topic, but that fits with the rest of the thread.

Wow - has this thread taken on life of its own today. On our CESA team we do not obviously face the challenges you do. Our team has 3 kids playing middle school soccer. The level of play between the club and middle school are not even close. For us Club comes first period - end of discussion. It appears you do not have the same sort of experience in the midlands. I certainly sympathize with your position as a club coach, however I still want more club games at U/13 and U/14 in the Spring. I guess it all depends on your goals. I see everything as cause and effect. More club games = better teams = better teams representing South Carolina in Premier League and Regionals = a shot maybe someday at Nationals. But hey I'm a dreamer.

In the states with mandatory promotion/relegation, they deal with many more divisions -- probably a necessary evil to keep divisions from ballooning or dwindling in size, among other reasons. With more divisions the difference between the top and bottom gets smaller, and on a given day a decent division 3 team can give a decent-to-lower level division 2 team all they want.

With just two divisions, it seems to me that the SC clubs do a decent enough job of figuring out where they belong competitive wise. There are exceptions in SC just as there was in the GA teams I examined at the top of this thread. So if SC stays at two divisions, then there probably isn't an urgency to deal with mandatory promotion/relegation.

I believe there might be value into adding a 3rd division at the U13/U14 level with the idea that teams might need to go to a "home and away" games or have some 'cross over' games with each team to get enough games to keep bamr happy, but the games will tend to be more closely contested and that should help both teams regardless of the result.

I'm all for relegation and promotion -- especially from fall to spring seasons! It's a little tougher for fall teams to be relegated from the spring due to tryouts and new members added to each year, but I think if you implemented an 8-man rule for 'nucleus teams' -- not necessarily the same team as a whole, but if 8 players return for ANY team the following year that played together as a team the previous year, it would constitute a team "coming back" -- then they would be subject to relegation/promotion. Without a "rule" in place, I think you'd just have a bunch of 'new' teams formed every year with new names or even change of clubs in order to stay in their league of choice.

In South Carolina you currently have "choice". Size up your team prior to the season and enter the appropriate division that you want to play in (Challenge or Classic). If you are a new team, pick your poison...play at whatever level you want.

In North Carolina, there is no choice. You are either promoted, relegated or you remain in the same division (state premier, classic 1, classic 2 or challenge). If you are a successful challenge team and you want to move up to classic, you have no choice. You have to start at the bottom at classic 2 and earn your way up.

To Hammer's comment about keeping the nucleus of a team together after tryouts in May....in North Carolina the CLUB owns the spot, not the TEAM. The DOC of a club can move players and teams around after tryouts in May and determine who plays where in the Fall.

Both systems have their pro's and con's.

I don't really understand how the number of divisions plays into the discussion concerning promotion and relegation. The number of divisions is driven primarily by the number of teams. I guess the number of divisions could be driven by the political correctness to create more "Champions".

Hurst, agree they both have their pros and cons.

Hammer's comment kind of gets to my previous point about the my team vs my club comment. Currently a nucleus rule exists for the RIIIPL spots, and as explained to me, it's to afford those that earned it the opportunity to play in it, that way it's fair. Don't get me wrong, I don't necessarily disagree, but if a clubs team is made stronger at tryouts by transfers into the club, why should SC send a potentially weaker team?