SC Soccer Forums SCSoccer.com Forums Club Soccer & ODP What "services" are people looking for?

The following excerpts of posts by Beezer raise some interesting questions and perspectives:

>>It's just a shame all the clubs can't endorse the Bridge FA so parents and players don't have to make that "tough choice" but, you're right, they need to now.<<

I understand this perspective; but would argue that it's incredibly misguided. Clubs look at CESA and believe that creating a "monopoly" in an area will lead to success. What they miss is that there's measurably more competition in terms of clubs in the upstate than in most other areas.

The answer isn't to coerce players into playing at only one place. The answer is to entice players with a common value system (e.g., ambition, dedication, etc.) to come to a club.

As long as the leadership of the other clubs in South Carolina view coercion and the elimination of choice as goals, they aren't going to achieve their goals.

>>It looks like it will have to succeed a more cut-throat way by "convincing" parents and players to join or, in simple terms, recruit.<<

Recruit away. I mean it -- for most players the majority of the year is "legal recruiting season." You might find, however, that offering something better is more of a recruitment tool than much else.

>>These "building a better product" and "improving services" statements are mindboggling. Look at what the club has done in its short history! They've 1) gotten the best coaches 2) have most of the best players 3) have numerous Premier teams and SCYSA/US Club titles and 4) have three nice places to train in Summerville, James Island and Daniel Island.<<

>>Again, if they have good fields and have the top coaches and have most of the top players, then what "products" and "services" are people looking for?<<

Okay...let's go through this. I've got a daughter that drives 90+ miles to practice from Columbia but has never seriously considered Bridge. Why? Because for over 50% of the population Bridge seems to be unserious about offering them very high quality soccer. CUFC absolutely demolishes Bridge in this respect -- and CESA is completely beyond either of those clubs.

Let's go beyond that. Bridge doesn't appear to offer anything for U15+ players in the spring. Bridge seems more focused on attracting low-country players than attracting the best players (and has from the inception of the club.)

There seems to be a built-in institutional arrogance surrounding Bridge. For example, you make the claim that Bridge has "the best coaches." Maybe. But I'd rather my kid be coached by someone with demonstrated success in RIIIPL-East and competitive tournaments -- and (for example) Andy Grist has it all over you guys in that respect. Now -- I'm sure that Bridge has fine coaches -- but if you believe that Bridge's coaches make the choice of the club a "no-brainer", then that really is mind-boggling.

Bridge may have "most of the good players" in some age groups, but it doesn't have this nearly across age brackets and genders. That cuts down the attraction of the ambitious kid who wants great soccer but isn't the "right" gender or age for Bridge.

In terms of fields, well -- you guys could have the greatest field complexes in the history of humankind -- and the best players won't care very much. If you're trying to get more kids who value convenience, then fields are important. If you're trying to get more kids who value the best soccer possible, look at what you're offering in terms of "mindboggling" services and work back from there.

The club is a year and a half old!!! Building anything doesn't happen overnight, however, the initial strides seem on course for success.

Bridge arrogance? Sounds like a personal issue which I can't touch or don't know.

As far as U15+ programs? That is definitely a by-product of its infancy. As time passes and the younger teams, which are the better ones for the most part, understandly, age up I'm sure the club will be able do more. Again, time will improve things. Also, NCAA rules prohibit D-I matches which was a big part of out-of-season "services" for women, as well as, trying not to do too much around high school season helps build a good relationship with HS coaches while the club is, yes, in its early stages.

Offering serious soccer? Look at the amount of Premier teams and list of tournaments, male and female, this club has attended so far as well as results. Again, time will allow the teams and, its resume, to build and keep improving.

Coaching? You mention a coach that had some success with one team, in a long tenure of an unsuccessful club in terms of Challenge and Premier soccer, vs. coaches with established club, college and Region ODP experience? Come on, Chico.

What age bracket and gender, other then maybe U14 or U15 men, does Bridge not have the best players in the Lowcountry? Fill me in, please. Or, maybe wait until after May tryouts when things are more precise.

Hi Chico, GREAT thread! Here's my priorities for Services:
1) YEAR-ROUND SOCCER OPPORTUNITIES - Fall league play is sufficient, Spring Tours at U16+ (a great way to see college campus'), coordinated Summer Team Camps. [like CESA]
2) COLLEGIATE EXPOSURE OPPORTUNITIES - Coaches network with College Coaches, publicize this info if its being done, I assume your NOT doing it unless I see it, SHOW ME! U16+ College Showcase or USC, CLEMSON, DUKE, UNC coaching visits...
3) LOCATION, LOCATION, LOCATION - This affords the largest, most tallented pool possible, e.g. I KNOW WHERE MY KID STANDS!
4) FACILITIES - Hey, howabout a checkout system for training equipment like speed ladders, speed drags............ It costs too much for individual families, so offer this as part of the program!
5) MEDICAL TRAINER - CESA's gotit hands down, their medical community provides certified medical trainers [AT THE FIELD]. This goes for High Schools and the Club - THE GREATEST PROGRAM BETWEEN COMMUNITY AND CLUB EVER! OK, really neat!

This stuff is not that expensive, it just takes a little commitment to make an average program GREAT!

Great ideas! Clubs are always looking for volunteers to assist with programs and manpower. I'm sure a new club like the Bridge FA, that doesn't have the full-time resources and infrastructure yet since it's only been a year and a half, would welcome ideas like that. Best of luck!

Doesn't the Bridge have a new tournament for U16+ that started a year and a half ago? Maybe over time it can develop into a showcase the way the Bridge is developing into the Lowcountry's elite club.

And, if you're a parent, then be careful bringing up year-round club opportuntities, because that has an easy solution that parents don't want to hear.

>>[Beezer] The club is a year and a half old!!! Building anything doesn't happen overnight, however, the initial strides seem on course for success.<<

I'm a fan of Bridge and have publicly said so since the club was formed. I'm still a fan of Bridge.

I'm just not a fan of attempting to coerce players into playing for a single club rather than taking the approach of trying to create a club that offers superior services.

>>Bridge arrogance? Sounds like a personal issue which I can't touch or don't know.<<

I made an incredible mis-statement here. Bridge doesn't seem to be arrogant; only a few of its supporters do. These are the people that get on this message board and advance the theory that if other clubs don't roll over and join Bridge, then that means those clubs are "political" and don't care about kids. These people don't seem to be able to conceive of the fact that what Bridge is offering to these other clubs simply isn't [at least yet] compelling enough and that Bridge should do more to make it more compelling.

>>As far as U15+ programs? That is definitely a by-product of its infancy. As time passes and the younger teams, which are the better ones for the most part, understandly, age up I'm sure the club will be able do more. Again, time will improve things. Also, NCAA rules prohibit D-I matches which was a big part of out-of-season "services" for women, as well as, trying not to do too much around high school season helps build a good relationship with HS coaches while the club is, yes, in its early stages.<<

Let's see...CESA...and it appears from other posters, to a limited degree, CUFC...offer spring programs and did so in their first year of existence. CESA seems to be playing some of the top clubs on D1 college campuses as well as playing a full D2 roster. And finally, you need to decide who it is that you're trying to serve: high school coaches or players.

Beezer -- respectfully, this is exactly what I meant by "arrogance" -- you've made every excuse in the world for Bridge not doing something rather than owning up to the fact that Bridge isn't doing something they should. You want MPSC and the other low-country clubs to join you? Do a better job, year-around, and provide better services.

>>Offering serious soccer? Look at the amount of Premier teams and list of tournaments, male and female, this club has attended so far as well as results. Again, time will allow the teams and, its resume, to build and keep improving.<<

What is the "amount" of premier teams on the girls side [which is the only "unserious" comment I made]? How do the tournaments that Bridge goes to different/better than those that CUFC goes to? CUFC, in only its first year, completely and utterly dominates Bridge in terms of its girls-side offering. You need to fix this, or at least convince folks that the club isn't apathetic toward girls soccer.

>>Coaching? You mention a coach that had some success with one team, in a long tenure of an unsuccessful club in terms of Challenge and Premier soccer, vs. coaches with established club, college and Region ODP experience? Come on, Chico.<<

You're right; I mentioned a coach that had success. Here's the point you're trying so hard not to get; while the Bridge coaches I'm sure are fine, this isn't a differentiator for the club -- at least yet. I might drive 90+ miles to play for Nick Finotti given what he's accomplished in HS and RIIIPL-East, but I'm not going to drive 90+ miles for many coaches.

>>What age bracket and gender, other then maybe U14 or U15 men, does Bridge not have the best players in the Lowcountry? Fill me in, please. Or, maybe wait until after May tryouts when things are more precise.<<

Take a look at your college signings on the girls side; then ask me the question again.

>>[Beezer] Great ideas! Clubs are always looking for volunteers to assist with programs and manpower. I'm sure a new club like the Bridge FA, that doesn't have the full-time resources and infrastructure yet since it's only been a year and a half, would welcome ideas like that. Best of luck!<<

Was CESA around for more or less than a year before it had full-time resources? Heck -- even CUFC now has full-time resources -- at least on the recreation side.

Volunteerism may be part of the answer; but the main thrust of the answer needs to be the people who get paid by Bridge, and its board, stepping up and offering better services for the dollar paid by parents.

>>Doesn't the Bridge have a new tournament for U16+ that started a year and a half ago? Maybe over time it can develop into a showcase the way the Bridge is developing into the Lowcountry's elite club.<<

I believe Bridge already is the Low-country's elite club.

>>And, if you're a parent, then be careful bringing up year-round club opportuntities, because that has an easy solution that parents don't want to hear. <<

What might that be?

You're fire but I won't be the gas. Great dialog!

COACHING, COACHING, COACHING

Coaching at the Bridge FA is the biggest differentiator in terms of the Lowcountry and every club in the Lowcountry will admit that!

Again, the Bridge FA is a year and a half old and is not the merger of all the major players. It's a different animal that's going to happen but will take a little longer then CESA and CUFC.

With that said, let time takes it's course with the evaluation of Bridge FA and its women. When the current U12-U15 are U15-U18, then that would be a true indication.

Apathetic to women's soccer? The Bridge FA women's side is very solid from U12-U15. U16 and U18 has never been strong in the Lowcountry before the Bridge so why should expend too much for something that wasn't developed prior? Start with the younger ones and grow. U17 is the MPSC and Bridge FA issue again with both in the semifinals of State Cup but imagine if it was a true merger like CESA and CUFC and all the major players were involved and all the players were of access.

The Bridge formation down in the Lowcountry seems to be quite different then CESA and CUFC. Alot more building, patching and fixing to do from its inception.

They aged out before the Bridge FA formed.

The quote says U-18G had never been strong in the Lowcountry before Bridge? Were they strong, or were they not strong? Was this the only Lowcountry U-16 and up girls team that had any success?

Let me clarify. The CURRENT U16 and U18 age groups, not all-time. The reference to age groups was for 2006-2007 season and their individual histories. The Bridge wasn't around for most of the current U16 and older playing careers.