Quote:

Tug Job,
When I read your posts I was completely dumbfounded, I don't come on this post to create hostility with other coaches, I do it to grow professional relationships with my colleagues, but by reading your post I was floored by your animosity towards me and my program. I contemplated a million different things I could say that I would hope dispell many of the misunderstandings you may have about what this program is trying to do, but then I realized that that would be an exercise in futility, because if someone doesn't even recognize the abusrdity of their own assertion about rules not being designed for fairness would never comprehend any argument to the contrary no matter how blantantly obvious the examples are to support the my argument so I won't even try. However, being a teacher and a coach it is my first duty to instruct and correct a few other misconceptions you have.
1) We at Eau Claire are not "threatened" by anyone/anything no reason to be, we have no expectations, if we lose we lose that's what's expected of us, but if we come out and beat YOUR team that would speak volumes about your abilities as a coach because being the favorite you should ALWAYS win right? After all the "rules" are in your favor. So if anyone should feel threatened it is your side, because you have EVERYTHING to lose when playing us. In addition when everything is said and done these kids here will turn alot of CW in this state about soccer on its head (Note: I won't but these kids will)

2)Good Coaches are successful no matter WHERE they coach that is what defines a coach as good. The reason Irmo is a good soccer school is beacuse coach Savitz made it that way. The reason RNE is not currently a good soccer school despite having all the necessary resouces is because no one has put the effort in to make it good (I believe though that John, if he sticks around, will change that).

I hope you now are a little more enlightened, have a good day



1) First of all I could care less about the rousing speech about beating someone and expectations of losing and this and that. I love to see programs like that succeed and, I think everyone who's been to the 1A state championships the last 2 years has been supporting Lincoln out of McClellanville. However, your points about placing even more limitations on coaches so that you can have what you perceive is a fair shot (even though I don't think it really is, see my points about off-season conditioning if you will) are questionable. I suppose you'd like to ban ODP players from playing HS soccer because your players can't afford to tryout? I suppose we should also disassemble AAU basketball and Fall-Ball baseball as well so that those who do not have the means to participate cannot? I suppose we should just drop all means of player development and relinquish ourselves back to the stone-age so that all teams will be "equal"? This would only seem fair right? In actuality, you are proposing more complications to an already problematic situation. It's HS athletics, you win with what you have. If Irmo has been dealt Aces and I have a pair of twos it's tough to pull that out. This doesn't just apply to soccer. It applies to all sports. You shouldn't be asking for more limitations, instead you should be asking for less limitations so that you can address and prepare your players as early as possible. If you are serious about coaching and doing a great job and building a program it would seem to me that advocating less time with your players would be a detraction not a benefit.

Also, if you'd like to bring your topics up you could attend the winter clinic meetings in Columbia where there is an open forum to address issues with the SCHSL regarding this. You could potentially bring up your problems there and see what all the other coaches from SC think about them. I'm not sure if you attended it or not but, there is also a great couple of sessions conducted by college coaches, usually from CofC, that could potentially be useful to you and your program. There is also one in the summer if you're interested which I believe takes place in Charleston.

2) Yes, good coaches are successful no matter where they are but success is measurable in different terms. For instance what you might consider to be a successful season for your program might be such and such and what some other soccer-johnny considers successful for his program might be something else. Irmo won all those titles with a team full of 25 "soccer" players, the best in the state. At that time it would be like taking the best players from DF, Chapin, and Irmo and making one team for the Yellow Jackets. It's the way it was. Now, demographics have changed as they always do and balances have shifted a bit. Same with Ridge View. In 01 they were a complete BEAST of a team. That roster was LOADED. Now? Some programs around the state see talent in waves. Year after year you have your Wando's, Greenvilles, Eastsides, Riversides, Chapins, Spring Valleys, NW, Bishop Englands that are just LOADED. Then you have programs who are cyclical who have good teams every 4 years or so when a group of kids who play together rise to an occasion during their junior/senior year at places like BC, DF, South Aiken, Socastee, Myrtle Beach, TL Hanna, Daniel, etc. Then there are programs who, because of where they are, have a tough time getting soccer specific athletes. That's sad, but it's SC Soccer to a "T". Trying to limit that coach-player relationship will only hinder those last two groups success because the best coaching stories rise from those schools who have magical seasons. Hopefully, Eau Claire can be one of those.

Anyways, I've rambled enough. Hope you have a good season coach. No hard feelings, have a good day

Last edited by TugJobber; 02/05/08 06:33 PM.
Puttin A's on B's