Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 4 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,170
S
coach
Offline
coach
S
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,170
>>[Coach Chas] Let's say the Charleston-area clubs all decide to unite and field one Challenge team per age group under a single banner rather than competing with each other, so as not to "dilute the talent pool," to use the ubiquitous term. Each club is still allowed to field its own Classic and rec teams, as has been previously proposed.<<

Respectfully, this is a bit of a straw man argument, isn't it?

Why would they decide to field only one challenge team per age group? Why don't they field as many challenge teams per age group as they competitively can -- they just organize it such that the "B" team can play challenge if they're good enough -- as judged by the coaches of the club.

We have clubs in South Carolina that have their "B" team play RIIIPL-East -- so this isn't far-fetched by any stretch of the imagination.

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 264
L
corner kick
Offline
corner kick
L
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 264
Replicating a successful model requires more than just photocopying on different colored paper.

Last edited by Loc Dog; 01/29/08 05:10 PM.
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 273
corner kick
Offline
corner kick
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 273
Back before the Premier League option was initiated, most clubs, HNISA in particular, fielded multiple Challenge and/or Classic teams.

I know we did an A/B team scenario when I started playing Select (back when U11's played 11v11 still) and due to numbers, the club organised two U12 teams: the A team, Lady Ice, and the B team, the Renegades. Aside from the knowledge that the Lady Ice had been playing together since rec and stayed mostly unchanged, very few people complained that their daughter was a Renegade and not on the Ice (and many moved onto Ice in later years as it lost players and they got better).

From my standpoint as a player, after I got over the initial disappointment, I was just happy to be on a select team on which I earned a spot. Knowing we were the B team was mostly incentive to get better and get more experience so that I could some day make it onto the A team or play up. Sometimes when we had a hopeless day or half, it was frustrating, but overall, I had much more room to improve and make a statement with the team that I wouldn't have had on the Ice.

I think most of the complaints are voiced just to complain. There will always be people who are better than you are and just because you run into some of them doesn't mean you suck at life or its the end of the world. Tiered teams, from my experience, give people more room to grow, make their statement on the field and lets them play with people of closer skill levels. If you pool everyone on even teams, the very good people can often showboat or get so bored with their teammates that it ends up detrimental to their team and themselves and the less skilled people may lose hope and feel so out of place that they never get the chance to work on being a better player because the good ones get play time and they don't or they never get the ball. The problem is compounded when the equal teams play tiered teams.

Also, just because you have an A and a B team doesn't mean that there has to be a huge separation in ability levels; it just depends on the quality of players trying out for the team. As someone mentioned before, some clubs have B teams who play RIIIPL. So just because you're a B team doesn't mean you have to necessarily sacrifice a great amount of success.

Last edited by adidaskitten86; 01/29/08 07:29 PM.

Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; [it] is also what it takes to sit down and listen.
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 558
D
Goal
Offline
Goal
D
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 558
Quote:


As for whether you have enough kids in the low country to pull this off, I would say "yes", but I have heard parents complain on these boards that the drive from Mt. Pleasant to Summerville (and vice-versa) at 5:30 PM isn't pretty.




I can't say I believe the long term overall interests of youth soccer in South Carolina have been served well by the mergers resulting in CESA and CUFC.

However, if a model could be developed in the Lowcountry that would draw the elite players of that area to a single team, the drive from Mt. Pleasant to Summerville at 5:30pm can't be nearly as ugly as the drive players are currently making from Mt. Pleasant to Greenville or Columbia for a 6:00pm practice.

I have always hoped that Bridge would evolve to represent that opportunity for the elite players of the Lowcountry. By leaving the other clubs of the area intact, the burden is on Bridge to develop the training and access to higher levels of competition that will attract the elite players. At the same time, the opportunities for players not able to win positions or families not able to afford supporting postions on an elite team still exist for those players to come home after tryouts, smile ear to ear and say "Mom, Dad, I made the "A" team".

Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 2,427
coach
Offline
coach
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 2,427
{I can't say I believe the long term overall interests of youth soccer in South Carolina have been served well by the mergers resulting in CESA and CUFC.}

Delta,
Maybe its just because you have only posted 10 times, or you are just dogged out, and even though you have the right to your own respective opinion,...........those 2 mergers have done more for the overall state of SC club soccer than even the wizard Chico has done with his brilliant piecharts, graphs, stats, and excessively wise analyses of the state of humankind.

Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 2,427
coach
Offline
coach
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 2,427
I don't know what I just said about Chico. It just came out in the spirit of the game.

Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 588
B
goal
Offline
goal
B
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 588
Quote:

Quote:


As for whether you have enough kids in the low country to pull this off, I would say "yes", but I have heard parents complain on these boards that the drive from Mt. Pleasant to Summerville (and vice-versa) at 5:30 PM isn't pretty.




However, if a model could be developed in the Lowcountry that would draw the elite players of that area to a single team, the drive from Mt. Pleasant to Summerville at 5:30pm can't be nearly as ugly as the drive players are currently making from Mt. Pleasant to Greenville or Columbia for a 6:00pm practice.





Having been a supportive parent of a commuting player for 2 seasons now, I can honestly say, in general the drive to Greenville is better for us than any commute required in the Charleston area. There is so much more to it than just the miles driven. The choice that our family made, obviously is not for everyone, but it is a great thing that the choice exists. For us, it simply isn't enough to gather the elite players to a single team, there is so much more that can go along with that, and does in some areas.

Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,256
Likes: 2
C
Coach
Offline
Coach
C
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,256
Likes: 2
Bear,

I think you just vocalized something that I've been sort of dancing around on this thread for a while now. The choice that your family made may not be for everyone, but it IS a great thing that the choice exists.

If all of the Lowcountry clubs unite their competitive teams under one banner (regardless of how many teams they field in each division)it would almost certainly create opportunities that were not available before, provided it were properly managed. It would probably result in more competitive teams that could gain more state and national attention. At the same time, if everyone "put aside their egos" and stopped trying to offer alternative, competing teams, it would also eliminate a lot of what many people value--choice.

I believe it's important to create the best possible opportunities for our young athletes--such as giving them the chance to unite under an organization that they trust and believe in, if they so choose--but I don't believe in forcing them to take those opportunities by eliminating their other choices.


I've got good news and bad news...
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 2,427
coach
Offline
coach
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 2,427
You would not eliminate choice. You would have even more choice, with more resources, within one major club, and under one central umbrella. If all the lowcountry clubs merged you would still have your respective choices within the major club, as well as the continued choices to travel to CUFC or CESA. I am not saying that a 'big merger' would even work in the low country cause I had zero knowledge of the environment there, except for what I read in this forum. But if a merger can work successfully in the Midlands as it has done so far, with all the egos that used to exist here, then it can happen anywhere.

Last edited by 2004striker; 01/29/08 11:50 PM.
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,170
S
coach
Offline
coach
S
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,170
>>[Coach Chass] I think you just vocalized something that I've been sort of dancing around on this thread for a while now. The choice that your family made may not be for everyone, but it IS a great thing that the choice exists.

If all of the Lowcountry clubs unite their competitive teams under one banner (regardless of how many teams they field in each division)it would almost certainly create opportunities that were not available before, provided it were properly managed. It would probably result in more competitive teams that could gain more state and national attention. At the same time, if everyone "put aside their egos" and stopped trying to offer alternative, competing teams, it would also eliminate a lot of what many people value--choice.

I believe it's important to create the best possible opportunities for our young athletes--such as giving them the chance to unite under an organization that they trust and believe in, if they so choose--but I don't believe in forcing them to take those opportunities by eliminating their other choices.<<


Respectfully, again, I think that you're offering up another straw man. You are equating a "big club" with "a single club" -- they are fundamentally different concepts.

There are a lot of reasons for clubs -- for kids/parents who value convenience or social soccer over competitive soccer, for example. But going back to the way this thread started, people were asking for one large competitive club. If I've misread this, and there's a belief that the right answer is to create a forced monopoly in an area -- then I'd disagree with that. But then again, trying to force a monopoly is pretty dumb -- because it's relatively easy to start yet another club.

CESA didn't drive out Foothills Premier or CFC or the other clubs in the upstate just as CUFC didn't drive out LCSC or CRSA. What these clubs did was offer an increase in choice in that more kids in more age groups and genders were able to play highly competitive soccer -- if they chose to.

Page 4 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5
(Release build 20201027)
Responsive Width:

PHP: 5.4.45 Page Time: 0.091s Queries: 34 (0.055s) Memory: 3.2143 MB (Peak: 3.5861 MB) Data Comp: Off Server Time: 2024-03-29 10:46:50 UTC
Valid HTML 5 and Valid CSS