It was two minutes that I really didn't want to spend and was going on memory from when I was looking at/defending the dual rostering and other things associated with US Club Soccer.
My understanding of this type of the chart is the same, whether you look at it bottom up or top down, just depends on what you are trying to say. In the case of Academy vs ODP, to me, this is a case of the parent organization basically saying the program that it had delegated to the lower organization isn't working for it's intended purpose. Whether that purpose is new, old, or whatever. With this arrangement it's very easy to understand why there aren't more issues that have surfaced between the two. It's kind of hard to tell the boss that they are wrong, if you want to keep your job, or at least some part of your job. Mostly what I'm thinking of is the comparison as far as recruiting is concerned. With this different organizational structure, it presently is either okay, or it hasn't been challenged by enough organizations to clarify by the higher organization, that it's okay for the academy programs, or US Club programs to actively recruit players which are rostered with other organizations. And I understand that stays within the current rules, which is why the initial announcement here puts the emphasis so boldly on US Club Soccer affiliation.
As for the player gap question and relating it to CESA, (which comparing is not something that I intended to do, because it sets it up to be club against club, and those types of discussions tend to spin nowhere) I don't know how CESA does it, but I would think that they don't do it that way. But then again, the programs that they run appear to be solid enough on their own that they don't have significant gaps such that they would potentially have to combine with other organizations to fill them. As for attracting other players from outside of their area, they seem to be the one that has a record for being able to do that, at least in larger numbers. That's not to say others don't have the capability, just that it doesn't appear to be or have been as successful.
For the what ifs/but fors: I really don't think if MPSC had joined initially, the current situation with CUFC/Bridge would be happening. With respect to SSC, again, I don't think this would be happening, and further there wouldn't have been so many hurdles to jump to keep it going. I think both of these have a common denominator, maybe not necessarily the lowest common, but common none the less. As for the microsoft comment, I take that to be a derailing tactic from what I'm sure you were able to interpret from my earlier statements.
Let me try to clarify the leap of faith, so hopefully the perspective will be seen. To explain that, I don't know much at all about CUFC, but as you know, I do know quite a bit about the other partner in this endeavor. My comments about this leap of faith has nothing to do with the qualities of the coach, or players, or based on my lack of knowledge of them, the organizational leadership of CUFC. Likewise it has nothing to do with the players in the low country, and to a lesser extent the coaching abilities either. However, this leap of faith is essentially being requested by the players and parents, from the CUFC perspective, from an organization that appears to be solid, to one that is assuming risk. The amount of risk could be debated, but, I think you would have to agree there is risk, from the CUFC perspective. From the Bridge perspective, this is a good deal and the leap of faith doesn't necessarily carry the same risk. In the current structure, the organizational dynamics are pretty known. What this partnership provides the Bridge players and parents of Bridge is the "possibility" of something better, and that normally is very attractive. With this possibility comes the hope that the consulting to the board provided as part of the partnership by CUFC will be sufficient to increase the longevity. However, consulting with the board won't be enough to do it, it will require more. Perhaps that will happen, but the track record isn't very good for that at this time.
Care to tackle how this partnership between Bridge and CUFC is different than between the proposed partnership between CESA and CRSA?
