[Preface: Before I start, I want to make sure that I make something clear -- I really think that "Beezer" is doing a great service for youth soccer in SC by raising these points. I absolutely think that the concept of "competition versus cooperation" is one that has no single right answer and that one extreme or another is harmful to providing our youth with the best possible services in terms of youth soccer.]

>>[Beezer] Using that "logic," 1-11 isn't something to brag about. And, with Premier League spots, states can have multiple teams in the semifinals so that "48" isn't as far fetched as you explained.<<

Making a comparison against "48" is illogical and misleading unless you expect SC to be able to field teams in all "48" of the after-group matches to which you refer. I thought that others, particularly "Coach P", did a good job of building some statistical frameworks that were both logical and indicative of where SC is.

Beyond the "48", however, your argument was illogical and misleading because you confused a single club's results with the results of an entire state. Here was your statement:

Quote:

The State's "elite" club, if correct, has one semifinalist and three others went out in the quarters. Not very good considering there's 12 titles up for grabs and 48 semifinal spots. 1 for 48 isn't a elite club in the region, just in a poor state. What's good for South Carolina still isn't good in the big picture.




There have been quite a few posts giving the actual breakdowns of club results from the state, and state results versus other states.

>>HOWEVER, the bottom line is South Carolina is not up to the level, right now, any way you paint the picture. I'm not talking about competing but WINNING. And, those who say it doesn't matter say that because they are not winning at the Region III and National. It's not hard to organize decent level American youth players to compete and keep a match close but can they play consistently well and WIN vs. the best clubs? No.<<

Isn't it fascinating that "It's not hard to organize decent level American youth players to compete and keep a match close..." when in fact South Carolina hasn't been able to do that in the last few decades consistently? It seems pretty hard to me! If you read other state's message boards, what you see is a growing differentiation between CESA and South Carolina -- because if you look at the records and goal differentials, you see a growing differentiation between CESA and other South Carolina RIIIPL teams. And what I see out there is that Bridge, and hopefully CUFC, is also gaining a reputation as a "new-school" South Carolina club, i.e., clubs that more consistently produce competitive RIIIPL-East teams.

>>Dallas Texans and CESA should not be used in the same sentence because of a match or two. As we know, the sun shines on all dogs' places at some time.<<

If your point is that the Dallas Texans are a much better youth soccer club at producing teams that consistently compete and win at the regional and national levels than CESA, then I think you are beating a dead horse -- no one has argued that point. What "sbs" argued is that from what she/he has seen, CESA teams are growing more competitive against the top-ranked teams nationally and regionally.

Both your point and sbs's point seem valid. However, you seem to feel that being competitive isn't a valid criteria for examining not just the absolute ranking of a state (or a club) but also the relative acceleration of a state (or a club). I think sbs would disagree; I know that I do.

>>The best players need to be with the best players, period! All those examples that came "close" and "did so well?" I'm sure there were other players around the state who could have helped to, not only win, but raise the level.<<

I'm sure that there is no club team in South Carolina that has a monopoly on the absolute best players in the state. At the same time, it is clear to competitive players that there are very few teams per age group that are regionally competitive. Thus, if players wish to "play with the best" at their particular age and gender group, the choices are typically pretty obvious.

>>And, I disagree strongly that players wouldn't travel to be on a hypothetical top team of all the best players. And, if it's true they do not want to travel, then there's an even bigger part of the problem. Alot of the top clubs in the U.S. have a good majority of players traveling 1-2 hours, one-way, three times a week.<<

So many assertions, so few facts! First, if players are willing to travel 1.5-3 hours 3 times per week to train, then we'd see many, many more players doing that to play on the few obvious regionally competitive teams in South Carolina (or Georgia, or North Carolina). Take the girls side, for example. Unless I'm mistaken, for the last two years there hasn't been many state champions that weren't a CESA team (I believe that two years ago MPSC won the U13G state championship). Before that the two constituent clubs that formed CESA dominated girls soccer to an extent that regardless of home town, only one girl Gatorade player of the year has not played at a CESA or CESA constituent club since the turn of the century. Does that mean that all or even most of the best girls in South Carolina are flocking to CESA from Columbia and Charleston? Not unless Columbia and Charleston have many fewer "great" players than the upstate. Players, even very good players, choose their club for a variety of reasons. It is not typical that South Carolina has 15-20 players in an age group willing to play 1.5+ hours away from home; if it were we'd see the recent SCYSA ruling that over 50% of players must reside in their home club's district actually have an immediate impact given the dominance CESA and its predecessor clubs have had over the years.

Secondly, please give me a few facts for your asertion that "Alot of the top clubs in the U.S. have a good majority of players traveling 1-2 hours, one-way, three times a week." You could well be correct; however, in my experience the "good majority" of the players don't do this; only a minority.

>>It's amazing how people in this state settle, justify and rationalize. We're behind! And, talk to National and Regional ODP coaches about individuals. We have a few one-off examples but they will tell you point blank: South Carolina is behind!<<

You are again beating on that dead horse. No one has argued whether South Carolina is "behind"; you are confusing location and velocity with acceleration. sbs and others have gotten on and made statements that South Carolina is catching up -- which of course implicitly renders a recognition that South Carolina is "behind." What you are doing is giving a radical solution to the problem (abandon regional/national club ambitions and go to an ODP structure) while others have pointed out that they don't think it will work (e.g., travel times, multi-state solutions versus single state solutions, etc.) or they have stated that it appears South Carolina is accelerating versus the best clubs.

>>And, those national club rankings? Come on.

And, the statement of the SC showing being poor as way off? I'm talking of objective numbers of the final finishes and you're talking of subjective feelings as a club rep, parent, manager, fan and/or God knows what. American youth soccer at its finest!<<

Actually, your "objective" numbers appear to me to be as subjective as sbs telling you the results of two years of scores against the top national teams -- both have to be taken in context.

Bottom line: while I respect your obvious sincerity and passion, I think you're quite a ways from making a reasonable, let alone compelling, case that the best path for South Carolina is to try to organize "super-ODP" teams against metropolitan-based club teams.