>>[Coach Chass] What does the color of a uniform have to do with reflecting a change in the way operations are run (Essentially, it's the same garb, only a different color...not exactly "business dress" vs. "business casual")--except perhaps to mark possession by an organization that wants to claim full credit for any success?<<
After kidding around, I think this deserves a serious answer. Of course, this will only be speculation -- a "if I were in their shoes" kind of answer.
If I had achieved what has been achieved by those leading CESA (e.g., respect in the region, leadership in the state, tournaments, etc.) and someone asked me to come in and help a club, I wouldn't want to start from scratch. I'd like to use what I had created previously to give me an easier first step on what I had to do with the new entity. In addition, since the organization CESA still paid the bulk of my bills and I led it full-time, I'd be interested in pursuing this such that I tried to help both organizations.
Practically, this means that I would use the name and colors to try to attract those players who weren't previously attracted to "SSC." I'd try to use the name to create bigger tournaments (note: I always thought it was a mistake to name this thing CESA-Summerville -- no one wants to go to Summerville for a tournament -- but there's a great chance people want to go to Charleston.) I'd use the name to try to push into tournaments I'd had trouble getting into before (e.g., Disney, WAGS, etc.)
Now -- at the same time -- if a company wants me to come in and lead a radical change in the company's operations, I'm going to do so both on an operational level and a symbolic level. I'm going to investigate changing the name -- and do so if it turns out that it makes business sense from a brand-awareness perspective because I know it's going to make sense from the perspective of sending the message that we are going to fundamentally change the way we do things (e.g., daddy ball is out, professional management and coaching is in, etc.) Even if I can't change the name, I'm going to change the logo (e.g., the colors) to reflect the new culture and environment. I'm going to use those changes to reinforce the operational changes -- because I know that human beings HATE change and will in a passive-aggressive way do anything they can to nod their heads and then still do things the way that they used to.
I know that it's easy to demonize people when you disagree with them. But it's all too often the easy way out and doesn't get at the root issues. As "cht" said, if people really made the decision to reject this deal not because they think they can do it better but instead because the don't like names and colors -- well, I just can't imagine explaining that to my kid. But as I understand it, a fair number of the people rejecting it had already made their mind to leave SSC and go to Bridge -- so I guess in the end at least some of the folks that voted made a rational choice...
