Thanks to you folks for the kind words and informed debate. I've always thought that posting without fully engaging in the arguments of other wasn't what I wanted to do - and that's the reason for my very few posts (on the order of 1-2 a year) these days. So I'm going to address several points regarding a few of the things noted above - and then fade away to my much more mundane
realities these days of helping a startup VC-based company become successful.
Big Daddy - Regarding "underlying belief", it would be fascinating for me to understand the perspective of what the underlying belief system is that I exhibit. I personally like the quote from Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" It would be easy to state that the recent results in the U13/U14 year age groups were an anomaly and didn't matter - that would fall into a belief system consistent with "CESA good; CUFC bad." I think that the facts are that large clubs who work their tails off with large younger populations will perform better - and that CUFC has executed on that model better than CESA. I believe that CESA should increase its outreach and size in the recreation area - but I've believed that since the club was formed.
Regarding the well-written post from Happy Daddy - I think you hit at the heart of a core issue that I continue to see as a problem not only in terms of youth club soccer, but in terms of many of the ills of the world at large. You make the case that recruiting is good if done by someone with good motivations and bad if done by someone with bad motivations. Difficult to argue. And yet by fundamentally believing that the motivations of "others" are bad and that "our" motivations are good - and thus judging the same behavior differently - we get at the heart of a lot of distrust and even hatred in the world.
This is the skill I've never mastered - and what I refer to as the ability of an intellectual contortionist - judging the same results and behaviors differently by ascribing positive and negative motivations to those based on my own biases. It is self-limiting - I'd be a better advocate for a point of view if I could ascribe to the "my club, right or wrong" perspective - but I've always thought that the "best idea" theory was more workable.
My point would be that in all my years associated with youth soccer, I never met a coach who I thought was behaving from "bad motivations." Do these coaches want to win? Sure. But from Phil Savitz and Chris Fryland wanting my daughter to play for CUFC to Andrew Hyslop at CESA wanting her to play at CESA - they all behaved ethically and they all wanted what's best for my daughter. Did they have different beliefs about what might be best for my daughter? Sure. But I expected that - and I understood their perspective.
Your interest are aligned with the Developmental Academy. Now that this is public information, it's more possible to assess your postings from that perspective. But what you see as the strengths of "your" program - I see throughout most coaches at most clubs in the state. I've posted on this before - but a club 100 miles away from my home allowed my kid in 8th grade to play against Division 1 colleges and to practice with Division 1 college coaches when she wasn't able to travel to their program. They allowed her to do 4 hour practices sequentially with boys and girls teams when she did go up there. They encouraged her to practice with competitive summer-league clubs with nationally ranked boys and girls programs.
But there were coaches from more local clubs who welcomed her and created coach-to-coach agreements for her to practice with the best boys and girls in the area as well. From the Aiken clubs to Lexington clubs to Columbia clubs - lots of coaches did wonderful things that always put kids first. And that's my bias. I think that almost all of the coaches in these clubs have the best interest of kids at heart. I think that many of the parents don't - they have the best interest of their particular child at heart. I understand the parent perspective - but I don't endorse it.
My kid wears an SEC championship ring today - and she was able to play for that college team in part because of a lot of coaches from a lot of different clubs who all did their best for her. Aiken Fire, the acronyms for Lexington clubs, CSC, CUFC (and other acronyms), GSC, CESA, etc. - they didn't ask her to sacrifice for their club - heck, they didn't ask her to sacrifice academically - almost every one went out of their way to help her achieve what she wanted.
So while I know you believe that the entity that you act as the board leader for is operating from "good" motivations while others are operating from "bad" - I just don't see it. I don't see anything wrong with the development academy stuff (beyond the misogyny
) - it's yet more choice for kids and that's a good thing - but it didn't invent the concept of "putting kids first" - a ton of clubs and coaches over the years did that and are doing that.
