SC Soccer Forums SCSoccer.com Forums Club Soccer & ODP Tournaments

[From another thread...]

>> [kickinit70] Good to know CESA could "easily attend" tournaments "if they had the desire." Are you kidding with that statement?<<

No. I could be wrong, but I wasn't kidding. I was actually tangentially involved in the decision -- and it was made not after being rejected by WAGS and CASL Shootout but instead being accepted and being disappointed with the tournaments -- and at the same time getting pressure from parents regarding the escalating costs associated with not only RIIIPL-East travel but these multiple tournaments as well. As a parent I was involved a few years ago with the plan to attend the Las Vegas tournament to which my kid's CESA team at the time was accepted -- and while I supported it personally there was enough pushback from players who were in the middle of their high school season and from parents who were in sticker shock that we ended up turning down the invitation.

Moreover, from your post, it doesn't appear that you have a problem with what I'm actually saying (the quoted text above regarding CESA being able to easily get into CASL Shootout and WAGS) -- but instead with the policy of CESA that it would focus on Disney and not go to these other tournaments. But I'll go with what you want to discuss and focus not on my assertion but on the point you're raising...

>>If CESA is a top club, with a CAP program that is suppose to put their female players in front of college coaches, why not attend a combination of WAGS, CASL, Las Vegas, Jefferson Cup, PDA and Houston on a consistent basis? These are where a large number of coaches appear yet CESA only attended Disney and, to no surprise due to not being used to the competition, didn't fare too well. Get out in the world and develop these players!<<

A few years back someone published an analysis by a soccer person regarding recruiting and out of region tournaments. Basically, it boiled down to not much succesful recruiting going on outside of the region in which a university was located. So to require parents to pay to go to Las Vegas (for example) in addition to traveling throughout the southeast for RIIIPL-East and to pay to go to regionals and to pay to go to Disney gets rather expensive for a return that is rather meager.

If a player wants to play for the University of Las Vegas, for example, there are much better options that requiring all of his or her teammates who want to stay in the southeast to pay for the travel and lodging and tournament fees associated with the Las Vegas tournamnet. Guesting is the primary one that comes to mind. If someone approaches a CESA coach, that coach is going to try to help the player find a team with whom to guest. That makes sense to me. Requiring 16 groups of parents to pay for travel and lodging to Las Vegas for the players, the coach, and typically a lot of the parents themselves makes less sense.

And for all of the talk and focus on club fees at times in this medium, the truth is that these fees are dwarfed by the travel and lodging fees associated with RIIIPL-East travel and tournament travel.

Take a look at Disney (the #1 ranked tournament) and then take a look at the other tournaments in terms of coaches attending -- then create a set of colleges that don't attend Disney but do attend the others. Then further create a set of colleges that don't attend RIIIPL-East games. It's a pretty small set.

At some point in time you have to decide how many parents you want who reject paying for what are clearly diminishing returns.

Did CESA get it ***exactly*** right in the decision to go only to Disney as its only premier-level tournament? I doubt it -- difficult in the real world to get stuff like this exactly right. And I think it's a good debate to discuss whether another tournament should be added -- and where. But trying to argue that you should fly to Las Vegas for player development rather than simply schedule games against Division II colleges, Georgia and North Carolina club teams, and the like is a difficult one in terms of not only "bang for the buck" but in terms of the number of games you're able to schedule over a given time period.

>>I guess the aspirations are to be just a top South Carolina club in a weak R3PL division and only put players in front of South Carolina colleges because that is what the facts are stating. <<

A "weak R3PL division"? I know that you can't be referring to the girls side -- so are you talking about the boys side and specifically the impact of the new USSF Academy program on the U16 and U18 groups? Or is there another point you're attempting to make? I'm confused by this entire paragraph -- because a lot more than SC college coaches attend RIIIPL-East games and a lot more than SC college coaches attend Disney.

I too was a little curious about the "weak R3PL" comment. My experience is on the boys side (rising U-17's). Based on past performance, of the three R3 divisions, it would be fair to say that West is strongest, followed by East and Central, in that order. I don't think there is any question that the depth in Texas (Lonestars, Solar, Texans FC, Dallas Texans...) is impressive. I also don't doubt that our SC teams, CUFC and CESA, can compete with anyone in the country, including the Texas teams. Based on performance in tournaments against teams from other regions (excluding R4 - whom we never see), teams from R3East do quite well.

Try playing Cobb, GSA, Wellington Wave, West Pines, Brevard, etc. and tell me R3PL is weak.

The only thing that I would add to your suggestions for kids wanting to be seen by out of region coaches is to attend a camp at a college of particular interest.

I guess my typing isn't up to my thought process. The R3PL female division of SC, GA and NC is weak compared to the rest of the Region let alone around the country. Disney had nothing to do with that statement.

Okay -- I think there are two subjects -- one which is college visibility and the other which is player development. The above seems to be about player development.

There are three sub-regions within RIIIPL; the East, the Central, and the West.

On the girls side, RIIIPL-West is clearly dominant. RIIIPL-Central is in my opinion the weakest, and RIIIPL-East is in the middle. But again, RIIIPL-West is much, much stronger than either.

If you were making the argument that CESA should travel to Texas and schedule more scrimmages/games against Texas and Oklahoma teams, then I'd agree if the parents can afford it. In fact, I know of attempts to do just that (but have seen little in the way of fruition.) If you want to fly farther, then flying out to southern California will also get you some of the best competition in the country.

But WAGS and CASL are relatively ineffective ways to get that level of competition. The spring/summer Las Vegas and Houston tournaments are better; but it's a lot of money for a couple of games. If you're focused on player development on the girls side, it's my opinion that you should do what CESA actually does -- play at home but play younger boys teams and for a different flavor schedule a lot of games with Atlanta teams.

The Women's U20 National team at Clemson the other day was playing a younger (U16) CESA boys team -- so I'm pretty sure that the strategy CESA is using isn't completely stupid.

Both, college visibility and player development and any other, and all, aspects a college services program should provide. I guess we just have an extreme difference in views of what a club should do for its olders players and college.

Also, the U20 women playing a CESA boys team has nothing to do with CESA except, by coincidence, its one of the closer real clubs around Clemson to get a match.

>>[kickinit70] Both, college visibility and player development and any other, and all, aspects a college services program should provide. I guess we just have an extreme difference in views of what a club should do for its olders players and college.<<

If there were infinite dollars and infinite time, then I think we'd have agreement. Given that parents are willing to spend non-infinite dollars and players are willing to give non-infinite time, then prioritization has to occur. The return on investment for the Las Vegas (and Houston) tournaments don't place them high on the prioritization list.

>>Also, the U20 women playing a CESA boys team has nothing to do with CESA except, by coincidence, its one of the closer real clubs around Clemson to get a match.<<

I'm sorry I wasn't clearer. My daughter's CESA teams have played CESA boys teams a bunch of times. If you wish for a girls team to get the best development possible, then a better answer is to play younger excellent boys teams more often rather than playing better girls teams less often when those girls teams are thousands of miles away.

I spent some of this morning catching up on the message boards (got pulled away by business); thought I'd answer some questions that were asked and/or points that were made -- but didn't think the SSC thread was the place to do it.

I think the tournament stuff is interesting...

______________________________

>>[Coach Chass] So, in this case, when being managed by the folks whose name creates these opportunites also means being managed by the same folks who choose not to participate in them...

...explain to me again how this translates into an advantage to the players?

Forgive me, honored Shibumi-san...my understanding is flawed. <<

I have no doubt it's my fault for not competently explaining well enough. You are assuming that the "folks who choose not to participate in them" means the same as "folks who chooose not to participate in them regardless of what club they're associated with and/or what team they are associated with." They aren't the same.

A nationally ranked South Carolina challenge cup state championship team (which is the mathematical mode for CESA's premier teams) is not the same as a team that is struggles to make it past the first round of the South Carolina challenge cup. The former team will expect to go to the Disney showcase (the issue will be the bracket); the latter team would feel fortunate to be invited to the Disney qualifier.

_________________________________________

>>

Quote:

---

[Shibumi] cht: I in no way mean it as a slam on anyone. It's just that a lot of the arguments being made didn't make sense. Trading out what's best for your children in the name of names and colors would be dumb. And since I could construct (and did on this message board) a logical argument for renaming and rebranding, I didn't understand how intelligent and reasonable people could be coming to such a different conclusion.

---

>>[Coach Chass] I guess that would depend on exactly what parents think is "best" for their children, and what lesson they are trying to teach them. Just because you don't understand the thinking behind something, that doesn't necessarily make it "dumb."<<

It is a fact that my not understanding the thinking behind something doesn't necessarily make it "dumb." At the same time, after spending a lot of time and energy soliciting both "facts" and "opinions" leads one to believe that people are acting against the best interest of their children, labeling those actions as "dumb" appears to a valid response. Particularly on a message board in which one is continuing to be engaged in an attempt to understand rational and reasonable motivations.

For example, I would value it a great deal if you would take the opposing position -- that colors and name changes and the like are more important than the services a club renders -- and argue that position. I feel that I could learn from you and that you'd make a position -- which seems murky at best -- much clearer.

>>"Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth. " --Marcus Aurelius<<

I know that it's fashionable these days to believe that an objective reality doesn't actually exist, that the world is entirely subjective. And certainly at the level of quantum physics, you can make that argument. However, there are actually facts in the world. If you jump off a very high bridge, you have a good chance to die. You can argue against gravity, but in the end gravity is typically going to make you very sorry regardless of how eloquent you are.

While there's an absolute difference between a "fact" and the "truth", it's up to each of us to evaluate for ourselves the difference. I believe that a human being who decides against procuring a better service for a child because of colors or a club name is practicing a mild form of reverse Darwinism. I believe that a human being who decides that they can coach their child better than a professional coach may be right or wrong, but at least that person is acting out of a consistent belief in maximizing what they are doing for their progeny.

______________________________________________
>>[cabj12] Disney definately should be the first priority but going to one tournament is stupid.<<

Yes, going to one tournament would be stupid. I know of no CESA team of which a relative of mine ever participated that only went to one tournament.
______________________________________________
>>>[Hatem Ben Arfa] We couldn't find the MESA complex up there a couple of years ago. Did they ever get it finished? Why not call it CESA?<<<

>>[cabj12] Cause it was MESA before CESA even existed...and as we know from this thread CESA can't just take over anything they want.<<

>[Belligerent] Nice play, Cabby!<

Sigh...there's actually a simple answer: the same reason you don't name all of your children "Bob", your dog "Bob", your wife "Bob", your car "Bob, and so on when you're named "Bob" -- it gets confusing.

MeSA is a field complex, CESA is a club, Pearse Tormey/Andrew Hyslop are employees of a club, and so on, and so on, and so on...

Ah, Shibumi...welcome back! I was going to be very disappointed if you'd let a good discussion drop like that. I'll see if I can hold up my end point-by-point...

(next segment will take some time...be patient)