SC Soccer Forums SCSoccer.com Forums Club Soccer & ODP SCYSA Board Notes

How about this scenario? Player guest plays with a team. Comes home and says "I really like that team - I'd rather play with them next season". Dad says "Well son, you can't because you've committed to Team A, and the rule says you can't go this team without your coach's permission". -- "Well, can't we get it?" -- "I asked him, and he said "no'. " -- "Ok Dad, could we just give coach the club's money back so that I can play where I want to?" -- "Son, you don't understand, we payed the money to the club, not the other way around". - "Oh .."

The one part of this scenario that I have a hard time envisioning is the coach refusing to consent. I would never withold consent for a player to leave my team if he wanted to. I might want to discuss the choice with the parent, but it's their decision.

Bingo! Ya'll hit the nail on the head in why the DOCs wanted the change. They saw guest playing for teams as illegal recruiting and want to stop it. Which is insane IMO. The finicial part is just thrown in there to sugar coat the real issue.

>>[RotR] Chico: Not sure how you can claim my points were different to Chapindads when you admit you have read my IM.

Also, you have now painted me as anti-CESA with your choice of words. To set the record straight, in my IM I admitted that I supported the changes to #4 & #5, so I guess I am as 'guilty' as CESA! So much for being 'gleeful'!

Looking at posts #80310 and #80343. Instead of accepting Chapindads word, you accuse him of an 'intense dislike of CESA' and doubt the accuracy of his statements by using the word 'apparently'. Don't you consider this strange when you where aware of the facts that Chapindad was simply repeating?

No hiding here Chico ... very few people throughout SCYSA will support your claim, and I am sure that it was more than me that had a good laugh at your final accusation!!

Got to leave this one alone for now! Have a great day!<<

I understand why you'd want to leave this alone. Several notes.

First, what you or anyone else sends me in a private message is private -- just as when people send me an e-mail it's private. I can't get on and take the position you want me to using your "facts" that were in essence "whispered" to me to advance some purpose you have that I may or may not understand. I'm sorry this is so difficult to understand; however, there is a difference between what Chapindad did (getting on and talking about a subject in public) and what you did (sending a private message alleging something.) One I can discuss in public; the other I can't without your raising the issue publicly. I hope this helps in understanding the core issue here raised in your note.

Look...everyone on this message board has biases. I think it's a lot better when people admit them and then we move on beyond those biases. I try to admit mine up front.

It's no secret that I'm not a fan of the SCYSA based on their ruling limiting choice last year. It's no secret that you're not either after what they did to you a few seasons ago. I think it's important to get those on the table, and then try to argue from a logical and consistent position. In other words, despite believing that the SCYSA has made mistakes in the past that we don't like, it's more than possible that they can do quite good things now and in the future. However, both of us walk into this with a bias -- so admitting that bias is the first step toward trying to keep an open mind on the issue.

The difference in this "debate" is that Chapindad is actually talking about the issues; you apparently refuse to discuss the very issue that you keep raising privately. If you are "for" #4 and #5, have the courage to state why you believe it to be the right thing for the players.

I apologize if you feel I've painted you "anti-CESA"; right now the only strong position I perceive you to be taking is "anti public debate" or "anti public discussion" or "pro private innuendo."

Last year my CESA daughter guest played at a tournament in Charleston with an Anderson team in an older age division. Our team had no matches that weekend and the Anderson team needed manpower due to players being gone and injured. The Anderson team was in no way trying to recruit my daughter and we had no intention of joining this team. For us it was merely about getting more game experience.

When initially asked by the Anderson team we immediately approached my daughter's coach and asked if playing as a guest on the Anderson team was OK. He of course said yes. If he had said no, for any reason, we would not have played with that team. SCYSA Rule or no Rule.

In order to guest play you have to have the players, "player card", which is ussually kept by the manager or team coach. Therefore it would be nearly impossible to guest play without the coach being aware of it. Lets say a player gets his card and decided to play without his regular coaches approval. Wouldn't you think his guest playing would dramatically effect his play time on his regular team, unless that player transferred to the team he was guest playing for.

So as it stood prior to the rule change - Without coaches approval a player better only guest play for a team he was hoping to transfer to. Now we require coaches approval.

I'm still not clear on why the big clubs would be in favor of the rule changes. If it is as suggested in other posts to limit guest playing in order to force kids to tryout with their club, rather than guest playing, couldn't they have accomplished the same thing just by making an internal club policy. Why would you need to make it an SCYSA Rule.

>>[Big Daddy] Someone had a post out there awhiles back about USYSA raising fees and this being a bad thing regarding increasing participation. A sampling of our fees.....


Club fees/Team Fees: $1500
Family tournament travel: $2500
(based on $500 per tournamnet x 5 tournaments)
Super Y $ 500
Lundy Camp $ 650
Additional Summer Training $ 300

$5450.....doesn't include contributions to Club fundraising or soccer related charitable donations. Nor does it include the 1-2 3 v 3 tournaments he'll play in, or indoor, or anything like that. Simply, this is what we spend for our son to play "at the highest level".

Does SCYSA paying an extra $1-2 per player in fees to USYSA really keep anyone out of the mix?<<

It might help if you take this as a percentage of fees. Your argument absolutely is valid when viewed from a select perspective; however, from a recreation perspective the SCYSA/USYSA fees are much higher as a percentage of overall costs. I know you weren't referring to my earlier post directly on what I believed CESA should do; but if you'll notice I referenced only recreation.

Chico,

I don't know which post I was referring to. But a dollar or 2 doesn't really matter to anyone playing anything other than rec soccer. And at an average cost of about $70-80 for rec (at least around here) I don't think it matters for rec either.

I think your point is that soccer can be a cost prohibitive sport and that any increase can only inhibit growth. While I agree with that.....I also think you need to look to the big hitters of cost and this ain't one of them.

Rec soccer is usually a money maker....

Chico,

I think one of the biggest issues related to the lack of growth or the lack of participation in soccer is focussed on 2 main issues....cost and organization.

Organizationally......there are tons of kids that play rec soccer, from about 5-8 years old. Hurst linked an article in the RH paper not long ago talking about the boom there in new players.

The problem is.....the pipeline as I've seen it goes from rec, to something akin to Academy, to classic, to challenge, to Premier. Here on the Charlotte border....kids would play rec until U8 or U9 and then play in the Charlotte Challenge league (SC CLassic) thru U10. At U11 they would move to NC Classic (equal to SC Challenge at U13).

Greenville and the Lowcountry appear to be pretty well set and very comparable to Charlotte in this developmental curve. But the rest of the state is a disaster. Kids don't keep playing soccer.....becasue a developmental roadmap hasn't been developed in most of the state for them.

In York COunty or Aiken or Florence or Myrtle Beach....where do the U7-8 kids play when they're really good? How about U10-11?

SCYSA needs to be working on fostering relationships among Clubs and brokering collaboraton on developing Academy type programs among smaller Clubs. We got all the U5-6 players we need.....what we need is the vehicle to keep them involved and into Classic/Challenge soccer at U13.

The other factor is cost......there are really no differences in cost between rec soccer and rec basketball or baseball. But there are huge differences in cost between AAU basketball, baseball.....and select soccer. Principal difference I think is in coaching costs. Most AAU coaches volunteer their time, or coach for a nominal amount. Not so in soccer, where people don't get rich.....but can earn a nice check for doing something they love anyway. Not sure how to address that one.....

I recently had a conversation with an individual who is very involved in AAU basketball. He asked me whether it was true that club soccer coaches were often paid. When I told him that they were, he asked where the money to pay them comes from. I explained that most players pay fees, and he was surprised. A fee based system would be unworkable for most of the AAU teams that he works with. While there is sponsorship money, most of their coaches are volunteers.

Please understand that I am not complaining about soccer coaches being paid. One of the biggest improvements in youth soccer from when I played a long time ago, is the availability of qualified coaching. But the cost of soccer is clearly a huge systemic barrier to entry. The efforts of clubs to provide scholarships simply do not, and cannot, address the obstacles created by the cost of playing. As hard as some try in that area, I fail to see how DOCs can make raising scholarship and endowment money to lower fees their top priority. In fact, it is probably not in their best interest to do so it they have an available pool of players who can afford to pay. I believe the problem must ultimately be addressed on a regional and national level, through US soccer and charitable giving.