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

MEMORANDUM

TO: SC Youth Soccer Members

FROM: Steve Ballentine, President

SUBJECT: Report on SC Youth Soccer Board Meeting of March 18, 2007

DATE: March 21, 2007

The SC Youth Soccer Board of Directors held its regularly scheduled meeting on Sunday, March 18, 2007, in Columbia, SC. Listed below is a summary of relevant matters considered by the Board of Directors at this meeting.


1. The Board agreed to pay the entry fees for all SC Youth Soccer State Championship and Reg. III Premier League Championship teams attending the 2007 Southern Regional Tournament in Oklahoma City.

2. The Board agreed to pay the entry fees for all Presidents’ Medal Cup State Championship teams attending the 2007 Region III President’s Cup in Tampa, Florida.

3. As required, the Board agreed to pay the travel and lodging expenses for 11 referees and 3 referee assessors to attend the 2007 Southern Regional Tournament in Oklahoma City. It was also agreed to provide a stipend and a tournament shirt for these same referees and assessors.

4. The Board approved changes to SC Youth Soccer Rule C-10, Guest Player Roster, which will require;

· A player’s present team coach must sign the Guest Player Roster before the player is allowed to participate as a guest player for another team.

· Any player who guest plays for another team is not allowed to transfer to that team during the current seasonal year, unless their present coach approves of the transfer.

5. The Board approved changes to SC Youth Soccer Rule, C-31 Transfers; which will not allow a player to transfer to another club until all documented financial obligations to their present club have been satisfied. The present coach’s signature on the transfer, releases the player from all obligations to the team.

6. The SC Youth Soccer Spring 2007 State Cup events will be held at the Summerville Soccer Club complex in Summerville SC. Applications are available on the web site www.scysa.org

7. The Board approved for SC Youth Soccer clubs to advertise their tournaments on the SC Youth Soccer web site at a reduced fee of $100 per event, per calendar month.

8. SC Youth Soccer District Council meetings will be held on Sunday, April 29th in their respective districts. Contact District Commissioners for specific information regarding these meetings.

9. SC Youth Soccer Registrar will hold registrar certification meetings in all districts as scheduled. Refer to the SC Youth Soccer calendar on the web site www.scysa.org for exact dates, times and locations.

10. US Youth Soccer announced they will require a fee increase from all State Associations for the ’08 / ’09 seasonal year. This will be a 100% increase from $1.00 to $2.00 per registered player. US Youth Soccer will also require an additional fee increase of $.50 per player for the ’10 / ’11 seasonal year.

11. This year the SC Youth Soccer will celebrate its 30th anniversary during the 2007 Presidents’ Workshop which will be held on August 4, 2007 at the Embassy Suites in Columbia, SC.

So to point 5.... What if a player is on scholarship? How is the obligation met? and if it is an obligation to the club then it should be a club board member who releases the player not just the coach.

To point #10....where can I buy stock in USYSA?

Okay...I know that others have told me I'm too hard on the SCYSA, so let me ask this as a question. How does anything on this list help either (a) grow the sport of soccer in South Carolina or (b) help the actual players?

Specifically, how does #4 and #5 do anything but hurt players?

How does #10 do anything but lower growth?

I know I must be missing something here, because it doesn't seem possible that a group of people dedicated to helping promote and grow youth soccer would do things that would do the exact opposite. So someone, please, give me a hand here and explain it to me.

#4 is extremely restrictive and, in my opinion, stinks!

I have no problem with requiring that financial obligations are met which is what I believe #5 is aimed at. I really don't see how it hurts the player to require them to be financially responsible.

If I read this correct, #10 is not within SCYSA's control. It still hurts growth, but on a national level rather than just within SC.

Coach P: I think you have some really good points here. Starting with #10, obviously, you're absolutely right that a USYSA fee increase isn't the fault of the SCYSA. However, what would be interesting would be to see some kind of internal insight at the SCYSA regarding the impact of this fee increase -- do they believe that their market is inelastic and that fees don't impact the number of players, or that it's elastic and that this will hurt their registration numbers? You don't get the feeling that there is a lot of insight into this. It's only in the last President's letter than there's been any discussion (and this was notably brief) regarding registration number growth (or lack thereof) -- and you get the feeling that this may have been motivated more by their reading message board chatter than some drive toward a vision of promoting and growing youth soccer in South Carolina.

If I'm at the SCYSA, I'd at least make the argument to the USYSA that South Carolina is a relatively poor state and that fees should be based on the relative income levels in the state. It might not fly -- and probably wouldn't -- but at least in preparing to make the argument you'd show the USYSA that you're serious about growing the sport and might pave the way for future concessions, particularly with respect to grants, that you request in order to grow youth soccer.

On point #5, if the SCYSA uses the past as the guide, they are going to leave definition and enforcement up to the club. This means that the definition of "club" financial responsibilities versus "team" financial responsibilities may be defined at the club level, and that the treatment of "financial need" or "scholarship" players is also treated at the club level.

Coach P: On #4, I appreciate your attempt to assign a positive motive to the SCYSA's decision on this.

You're certainly right that increasing the bureaucracy associated with guesting will make it harder to get guest players.

In addition, from a player's point of view, the restriction against transfer after guesting means that a player who wishes to evaluate another team during a season should never guest but should simply transfer. I believe that the law of unintended consequences is going to bite some clubs here -- instead of making it less likely that kids will transfer to larger clubs with more access to the higher level tournaments, I believe that this will make it much more likely since the clubs that previously would allow a player to guest will now simply say if a kid wants to get exposure at Disney (for example), they have to join the team.

Chico,
Agreed. The second half of #4 is puzzling. It must be an attempt to restrict the use of guest playing as a recruiting tool, as if the existing rules against in-season recruiting were not enough. I typically don't favor adding rules unless there is a problem that a rule can correct. Is there a high incidence of players transferring to teams for which they have guest played? Or is this rule a reaction to minority occurances? In the latter case, I would be for dealing with the exceptions, not punishing everyone with a restrictive rule.

Coach P: I take it in the same way -- that it's an attempt to eliminate guesting as a mechanism for recruiting.

Of course, as most things like this do, it will actually have the opposite effect. It basically boils down to "the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and kids have fewer choices." While I like the fact that it's probably going to make CESA more attractive, I dislike anything that has kids getting the short end of the stick.

Why does this help clubs like CESA? I can remember a year ago when several kids who wanted the exposure asked to guest on some CESA teams at Disney. These kids didn't transfer from their existing Columbia-based clubs, either then or the next year. The kids got something out of the guesting

If I had any influence at CESA, what I'd recommend is that they immediately stop allowing kids to guest from other clubs except at end of season events -- and even then to consider not doing it. That in essence is a "recruiting" move in and of itself; it's saying that these kids that want to play in front of Anson Dorrance or Robbie Church can either join CESA or forget it.

Before, you had kids that "used" CESA to get more exposure and you had CESA trying to put its best face forward to show these kids how great a place CESA was. But there was no quid pro quo -- my guess is that most of the time these kids walked away and never joined CESA and that was the end of it. Now, the SCYSA is in essence mitigating the motivation from CESA (or any other big club which can get into the absolute best tournaments) to allow guesting.

Chico- "I believe that this will make it much more likely since the clubs that previously would allow a player to guest will not simple say if a kid want to get exposure at Disney(for example) they have to transfer"

Rosters are frozen right before state playoffs (U15 and up) so they will not be able to transfer to the team. They must be guest players or not get to play.

Again - we're hurting the players.

The State is treating these boys and girls like professional players..Like they sign contracts with these teams..But these boys and girls are not getting paid are they? These professional teams are funded by the parents..
Maybe the state would like to take over funding all these professional teams since they feel they know what is best for the players..

I think the State is trying to get parents and players to recognize they have made a commitment to the team, the club adn also to the other parents on the team. After all, if a player drops off the team and you have not collected those team fees or club fees, the rest of the parents left must "pick up the $$ slack". Is it fair to these parents that have committed to pay their share, budgeted for their share and then be told they must pay more?

I have no problem with the player and parents having to pay the team fees..I do not like the 30 day period that the coach controls..If the state wanted to control player movement...they should of started that three years ago.
My bottom line is that if I pay all the costs for my child to play then my child should not be held to a 30 day waiting period because some coach feels jilted..

I agree completely with Chico on the issues of 4 and 5. I have no details because I was out of town on business for the board meeting but was disappointed to see the rules get passed. I do know that the several DOCs, including one from a very large club in the upstate wanted this change.

But like any good board, SCYSA is willing to admit mistakes quickly and willing to make the changes accordingly. I have seen it in action several times.

Chapindad: I understand that you dislike CESA intensely and that you apparently believe CESA personnel was partially or wholly behind #4 and #5. However, getting past that...

Are advocating that the SCYSA change their ruling with respect to #4 and #5?

Chico, this is why it so hard to debate with you. Despite the facts you still sing the same song .......

RotR: I'm confused; what facts am I ignoring, what song do you want me to sing, and what is it you're trying to debate?

"Screw your courage to the sticking-point and be brave." Or to put this more clearly: say what you want to say, don't hide behind ambiguous posts and hope others will say what you want to say... (<-- Hey...I found the other emoticons as well!)

Chico,

I have no dislike of CESA intensely or not. I do not always agree with them but I also don't always agree with my wife and I love her very much. However getting past that....

Several of the DOCs did ask for these changes at one point but it seems something must have happened(That I have no working knowledge) that helped to reinforce the request and get it past the board.

As I stated with no hate or discontent that I agree completely with you on parent rights and will work to try and get the rules repealed as the time presents itself. I only mentioned the DOC at CESA not as slam against CESA but to highlight that this rule was not put into place to protect smaller clubs from the mega clubs. The mega clubs where the first to bring the rule to the table. I do apologize if I was unclear about my statement and left you with a wrong impression, that was not my intention.

I do hope you have a blessed day....

Chapindad: Thanks...I appreciate the detailed response. You weren't the first to note to me that it was a "mega-club" that proposed this to the SCYSA; however, you were the first to do so publicly and thus the first time I could respond without breaking confidentiality. I mentioned biases to get them out of the way early; I for example am strongly biased in favor of clubs offering regional and national level opportunities.

I believe in being loyal not to people or organizations but to concepts and ideas. I am very loyal to the idea of CESA -- offering players the ability to compete from recreation to regional and national level play and to growing the sport from the recreation level up. I am very loyal to the idea of Bridge (although they frustrate the heck out of me in terms of their execution sometimes). I am also loyal to the stated intent of CUFC although their execution worries me probably most of all of the "big three" clubs in the state.

I believe in weighing the balance of what an organization does and choosing to support it (whether it's in speaking, volunteering, financially, etc.) even if there are things it does with which you don't agree. In short, when I hear the term "blind loyalty" I tend to focus on the negative "blind" part.

I understand what you're saying as a parent. To me, it would be okay if CESA (or CUFC, or Bridge, or whatever) would make rules that they wouldn't a transfer without fulfilling financial obligations -- heck, I agree with that part and as a parent think that other parent's should honor in full any and all financial commitments they make. It would also be okay if a club were to make rules for itself that they couldn't transfer guest players in if they guested for some period of time (I think they'd be dumb, but they have a right to be dumb.)

But I don't understand why the SCYSA is in the middle of making these rules. There is a bottom line on all of this -- and that is that very few organizations exist in South Carolina that are actually trying to grow the sport. Creating new rules to restrict what kids do with regard to choice doesn't seem to be the right path to growing the sport.

Now...getting to the one thing I think ***may have*** been dumb on CESA's part...if they actually were the "movers and shakers" behind the guesting rule, then they did not live up to the ideas of CESA as I understand them to be. I've never seen a coach at CESA, from the executive directors down, who got in the way of a kid guesting or for that matter of a kid transferring. I have not a clue as to why CESA would attempt to limit choice in terms of this "guesting rule" -- particularly when the club itself could simply choose not to allow guests or not to allow players to transfer. This one is beyond me. Maybe someone who understands can explain it a bit more. But the bottom line is, regardless of who proposed it whether it was CESA, my spouse, or the Pope -- I disagree with it.

By the way...thanks for this post...I was glad the other day to see you back on the board...

Chico: Did Chapindads latest message make it any clearer for you?

PS: Looks very much like that IM I sent you last Friday!

RoTR: One other comment -- in going back and trying to read intent into your post I think that one of your points may be that I refuse to criticize CESA. I wanted to take this opportunity to do so on another issue.

I think that CESA is making the wrong decision to continue to affiliate its recreation program with the USYSA. I believe that CESA would do better to explore both lower cost, and lower bureaucracy, options ranging from other affiliating organizations to handling these programs itself.

However, until someone comes along and creates a youth soccer club offering regional and national level competition to players and is aggressively trying to grow the sport from its recreation program on up, I'm kind of stuck with supporting CESA or taking my ball and going home. Thus I continue to support the club.

Any questions?

RotR: No...not really. Chapindad did a great job of explaining his points to me; not your points. Chapindad was willing to publicly present and discuss those points.

Just what are your points here? What is it you wish to discuss?

Yes...you (and two others) PM'ed me in the last few days to gleefully note that CESA was "behind" one or more of these rules. Dude...as I noted in my message back to Chapindad...I'm not going to discuss what someone offers in private...and I figured you had your reasons for not raising this in a public forum.

I'm still not going to discuss what you said privately without your raising it publicly regarding either your club's position or any other club's position; however, if you'll raise it publicly I'll be glad to discuss, debate, and analyze the issues. If I can find a logical inconsistency in my position, I'm going to try to understand that and hopefully I'll have the integrity to switch to a consistent position.

My point is radically simple: I am all for holding parents to their financial commitments; however, I am completely against a plethora of rules that limit the choices of players. It doesn't matter who or what advocates the limiting of choice.

So how about it? You don't need to hide on this -- state what it is you wish to discuss without hoping that you can whisper in others ears and they'll do what you want.

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!

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?

Who comes up with this stuff??

#4 is ridiculous. I can't believe that SCYSA has come up with a way to require yet another signature from somebody. All we are missing is pink carbon copies in triplicate. We complain about not having volunteers; well, this is the very kind of thing that has them throw their hands up and decide they don't have time.

Second, on the transfer part of the rule, here is yet one more rule telling me where my kid cannot chose to play. Way to go guys!

I am rapidly getting to the point that I think we will be better off spending our weekends at pickup games around town. A lot cheaper, less paperwork, more playing time, better competition.

What about this scenario: Before say a coach from a large club was able to take guest players to big tournaments, kinda look over the players and then if that player turned up at tryouts the next year they would then have a pretty good idea of how the new player performed. Without utilizing that player as a guest for a tournament, then all the coach might see of the player is the limited one or two nights at tryouts. Without seeing that player in a real competitive environment the coach might A; not pick the player since they do not know how they are likely to perform; or possibly B; pick the player only to discover later that the player can not cut it with the rest of the team. Lets just say B occurs; Player leaves his first club,where maybe he/she was a star only to join a new club and then the following year he is relegated to a lower team.

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.