Quote:


And Coach Chass... for sure the low country has plenty of talent to make an A, B, C team in the same age group... But as stated by some it is not usually little Johnny that has the issue it is usually mom & dad who think Johnny should be in the A team and not the C and therefore I'll start my own club and bring the one coach who gives me the answer I want to hear...




I agree completely with that. Happens at all levels in all different areas, not just club soccer. In HS it's "I/my kid should be playing varsity" even though the player would get much better experience and development on the field playing JV than riding the bench at varsity. My kid should be in the honors classes, even though he/she obviously scores average at best in CP. Coaching at the classic level, I've seen players and parents get upset because a 16-year-old was placed on a U17 team rather than the U18 when they were obviously talented enough to play at the U18 level. Believe me, I know the scenario.

Still, the A-B-C division within a club wasn't exactly my question. I'll give a specific example to clarify. I don't have a dog directly in this fight, really, so I'm trying to be objective.

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.

Focusing on one age level and gender for a moment: In the 2007 fall season, Bridge FA, MPSC and CUSC entered teams in U18 girls' SCSCL competition. Bridge FA 89 Girls Gold listed 14 rostered players, MPSC U18 Girls Elite 16, and CUSC U18 Girls Black 16. That's a total of 46 athletes competing at that level and age group. Let's put these numbers into the unified-team scenario.

For training and playing time purposes, a unified team would probably not carry more than 18 or so players to fill out the roster. Logic would dictate that the best 18 out of the 46 would be chosen for a hopefully dominant, undiluted team.

My question is, in this scenario, what are the options for the remaining 28? Now, by the A-B-C everybody-wants-to-play-up theory, were all 46 necessarily challenge-level material? Probably not. Were more than 18 of the 46 qualified, though? Probably so.

So, what do we tell the ones who don't make the top-18 cut?

-Sorry, you can't compete at this level because we don't have room for you on our squad, and we can't allow another area club to field a team because it would dilute the talent pool. You may be as good as some who made the team, but for numbers' sake you'll have to drop down to Classic anyway. You can't go play Challenge for someone else in the area because we've eliminated those opportunities to make sure all the "best" players wind up on the same team.

-Ok, we have enough talent to form two SCSCL teams within the club, but we're going to make sure we place players so that one team is as dominant as possible, while the other may be left to struggle in the same league. (Example: 2007 CUFC 89 Girls Elite: 8-1-0. 2007 CUFC 89 Girls Palmetto: 2-4-3.)

-Hey, you can always drive up to Columbia and try your luck there.

-Tough break, kid, but we're winning without you, and that's what really matters to us, so we're not particularly bothered.

Other options/thoughts/ideas to make sure deserving athletes--the ones who are willing to pay and work to get training, experience and competition at the highest level--aren't left out of the loop in the process of creating a "dominant" team?

I've got good news and bad news...