SC Soccer Forums SCSoccer.com Forums SCHSSCA N-S Game and "play club and not play high school"

>>[Chico] So if they don't understand high school, isn't it probable that they [a] never will and/or [b] don't want to? So then given this reasoning what would be the motivation for this N-S game thing?<<

>[deahler] I think that it is good marketing to sponsor a game that has a large number of participants from your club. Especially when it is your desire to attract more and more of the very best players from around the state to your club. You want to play in the all-star game...come join the club, and we'll get you there. Not that it is implicit in this particular effort. However if one of the potential "customers" wants to draw that conclusion - good assumptive marketing! Which brings me to the "small" realization...<

First your theory was that these foreigners just didn't understand the U.S. sports scene. Now there's a second theory, this being a marketing-based strategy. It doesn't make sense on those terms either. CESA draws as many players from other states as they do from outside the Greenville/Spartanburg/Anderson area in South Carolina. The players it draws from outside of the area are overwhelmingly oriented toward its higher level teams and regional/national exposure, typically they already are all-whatever players. On a purely marketing and development standpoint from a short-term selfish CESA point of view, this is a horrible investment; you'd instead go after larger metropolitan areas within a fixed radius out of state such as Charlotte or Atlanta and focus your investment there. From a long-term perspective, I believe it's a wonderful investment because of what Kyle Heise said in an earlier post: "I think it is very evident that what many consider the "top club from a national or regional perspective" in South Carolina, Carolina Elite Soccer Academy, has joined alliance with the S.C. High School Soccer Coaches Association to continue the North-South Soccer Classic. Both play an integral part of youth soccer in the state and in my opinion can co-exist equally and help all parties involved!"

>>[Chico] This N-S thing seems to be a multi-year large commitment; would it really have been made only as a result of some "small realization" about something that they've been exposed to for decades? Alternatively, could it be that this is either a "large realization" or simply a continued philosophy and if so, in your opinion, which one?<<

>[deahler] To me a "large realization" by CESA of how important high school soccer is to the players would be something along the order of not having any club related activities during the 16 weeks of the high school season. I am not necessarily advocating this action, just that it would be an example to me of a "large realization" on CESA's part. As a "large realization" of the importance to players in their sports of the high school experience, AAU baseball and basketball organizations don't have any activities during their respective high school seasons. Which brings me to my opinion on another of your questions...<

Thanks for being open about this. I am having a bit of trouble following some of your arguments; any help would be really wonderful.

Who do think wants the ability to scrimmage colleges? Players. It seems to me that your basic position is to deny services/opportunities to players, i.e., to force players to do what you think they should want to do rather than what they actually do want to do. This past college season saw players from over 10 clubs, 25 club teams, and 30 high schools participate. College coaches that are involved in this want this to occur. Some high school coaches have come on this message board and talked about the "wonderful opportunities" that they don't want their players to miss. And yet your theory is that CESA should tell the players they won't do it, regardless of demand. Why?

Is your theory that the state ODP process should shut down for this 16 weeks -- or just club? How about the regional pool teams? The national pool teams? The US national teams? Should the NCAA and the colleges change the spring seasons, the only times that they'll schedule scrimmages, for this 16 weeks?

>>[Chico] ...this comes back to an "either/or" mentality; [...examples...]<<

>[deahler] In my opinion things ARE different today. Like you, I played multiple sports in high school with all of the conflicting schedules that you mentioned. (I am assuming since you lettered in all of these endeavors, that they were all played in association with your high school.) The difference in "our day" was that all of the coaches ultimately worked for the same person (Athletic Director, Principal, Superintendent). Where I grew up the only "outside the school" sports opportunities were in the summer. There were no club teams, AAU (in it's infancy) and Little League baseball, restricted themselves to summer activities. Also in "our day" it was very rare (in fact, I can't recall a single case) to see a good athlete restrict themself to one sport, and then play it year around. Using my daughter as an example, she has played as many as three varsity sports in a given year in high school (down to just two now) along with the club/AAU involvement. During her participation she has never missed a high school sports practice or game due to a conflict with a sport outside of high school. This is purely her decision.<

I read this three times to make sure I understood your position and I'm still not sure that I do. It's okay to miss practice/games/matches if the two coaches with whom you have a conflict work for the same person? Huh? Help me out here, what logical reasoning is there that it's okay to have a conflict if your coach works for the same person as another coach but it's not okay if your coach doesn't work for the same person?

Look, I understand why a high school coach might have to "grin and bear it" if a player misses something which is a school event and is sanctioned by someone like an AD or a principal. I understand a high school coach discouraging missing practice/games/matches through various penalties. This all makes sense. What I don't understand is someone making the case that there is a fundamental difference between missing for those reasons versus missing for any other reasons. Can you make your case here?

The AAU examples you keep raising would be viable if it weren't for the fact that college spring seasons last a specific amount of time as per NCAA regulations -- and it is that which defines when college scrimmages can exist. AAU has the flexibility to change timing; that doesn't exist in college soccer and scrimmages.

>[deahler] Interestingly, the only coaches that have ever tried to "convince" her to play just one sport have been outside of the high school.<

Interestingly, the reason that my kid began playing high school is that one of these CESA people advised her that she ought to give it a try at least while she was a freshman. We can both give anecdotal evidence until we're blue in the face; the simple truth is that there are great coaches that look out first and foremost for kids and there are not so great coaches.

In closing, let me again express appreciation that you've stepped forward to address these issues from another perspective. While I don't understand the logic of what you're saying, I'm hopeful that eventually I can understand your position and what you see as viable alternatives here. At the moment, quite frankly, I'm confused by the logic and consistency of your arguments -- thanks for helping me get clear on some of this.

Chico,

I think the reason you are "confused by the logic and consistency" of my arguments is because you are reading way too much in to them. That's okay though. I find it very entertaining to read your perspective on my opinions.

First of all, I think CESA's involvement in the N-S game is good marketing. (By the way, I am not espousing two theories here, as you claim - the realization that a market exists, and then investing there to create goodwill and exposure is one theory with two steps.) You state that "From a long-term perspective, I believe it's a wonderful investment". You also reference Kyle's quote, which to me heightens people's awareness of CESA, gives the club more exposure and creates a sense of goodwill in one of their primary markets. To me that is what good marketing does. Maybe we just have different definitions of marketing. I don't have anything against CESA, and am not trying to read anything in to this particular endeavor on their part. You asked for opinions, and I gave you one. Please don't read things in to it. I might not be right, but I am definitely not confused!

Secondly, you asked how I would define my various levels of realization, and I merely defined for you what a "large realization" for CESA would be for me (not having any club related activities during the high school season). In that same paragraph I clearly stated, "I am not necessarily advocating this action, just that it would be an example to me of a "large realization" on CESA's part." You copied this and put it in your post, and then went on to say, "And yet your theory is that CESA should tell the players they won't do it, regardless of demand. Why?" While I appreciate the banter on this subject, please don't put words in my mouth. I have no theory on what CESA should or shouldn't do, and probably never will. I do wonder though what the college coaches would say (or do say) if players on their teams were pulled away from practices and games during their season to go play in scrimmages against pro/national teams. As for the AAU examples, I think that the reason AAU is not in conflict with the high school season is because it came along well after the scholastic sports were already firmly established. This is probably more of a mandate than a realization. The same is not true of the club versus high school soccer situation. I was not using this as an example of what CESA, or any other club, should or shouldn't do. Just as an example for my "large realization" definition.

Next, I was merely answering your question from the previous post, "Are things really so different today?" And in my post I CLEARLY copied your statement and question prior to my response, NOT the statement you copied in front of my response! Maybe that is why you are confused. If me using my daughter as an example is what throws you off, then make sure you read the final comment, "This is purely her decision" - not a coach's - not a teammate or friend's - not a parent's. It was the kind of decision I never had to make - hence, why I feel like things ARE different today. Another feeble attempt on her parents' part to make her teenage sports experience as enriching as theirs was - not necessarily perfect - not necessarily filled with glamorous awards. We would like for her to come out on the other side of this experience with an understanding that working with a group of people to accomplish something is far greater than any personal reward, and that character is built by what you overcome along the way, not what you achieve at the end. Maybe we are just too idealistic. If so, I am perfectly content to be that way! Ask Julie Bolt which she is prouder of - the way her team overcame 5 road games in two weeks and a 3-1 deficit in the championship, or her scholarship to Clemson. I wonder what her answer would be? Ask Ashleigh Sheets whether she was more concerned about her health, or helping her team bring home a title. This forum has already been informed of what she thinks. These experiences are very difficult to replicate in a teenagers life.

My grandmother was a plain-spoken country woman. Whenever I would try to read something in to what she said, she would always ask the same question, "Do you have a guilty conscience son?"

I don't get the last part. Is Chico reading something in to your analysis, or are you reading something in to CESA's motives?

Dexter: I'm confused as well. I'm working on a longer response outlining and detailing more of my confusion.

I do know that I ***really*** appreciate the time and energy dealher has spent on this!!! I'm hoping he'll hang with me a bit longer. And if anyone else has a perspective on this, any perspective, I'd really appreciate hearing it.

Chico,
I got lost with the small/large realization thing. Due to a combination of my Red Neck upbringing and too many head balls as a kid, I am having a hard time understanding the basic premise of this issue. Could you state the main issue in a few, very brief words, so even I could comprehend. Then I may be in a position to make a very semi-intelligent response. Please forgive my Shearer-like stupor.

Dexter,

I don't do analysis any more. It requires way too much research and experimentation. I gave that up when I quit being an engineer. I only provide opinions, not necessarily well researched or thought out ones, but opinions none the less. If I left you with the impression that I was interpreting CESA's motives, it was error on my part.

Chico was looking for someone to banter with, and I have provided him with that because I have some time right now. I'll hit the road in a couple of days, and someone else will pick up the slack.

Touché.

2004striker: I used Cornerflag's unanswered post in another thread to try to raise discussion regarding CESA's motives and position. Others got on and began discussions of various things. Kyle Heise got on and made a brilliant post about HS/club working together. deahler got on and advanced one possible position that CESA might stop operations for the 1/3 year during HS play if they really care about HS [although he did say he wasn't saying it, he was just kinda putting it out there.] I disagreed with deahler and have asked him about his opinion [or non-opinion]. My position since I first posted on this in 2003: we need clubs and high school to work together and abandon territoriality and related suspicions to advance the interests of soccer in South Carolina.

That still wasn't very terse! Sorry.

deahler: Thank you for your opinions! I'll take them in any form; I appreciate it. Too many people look for the worst in others and don't express it; I appreciate that even though you're advancing not necessarily your own opinions, that you're helping me learn by putting some opinions out there.

Chico, deahler, and Dexter -- excellent use of the Message Board. This is what I like to see here and appreciate everyone's opnions and candor!

>>[Preface: deahler, thanks again for the opportunity to understand and discuss this subject. Reading your posts have actually helped me in understanding a perspective that at times I find hard to grasp due to my own ignorance and lack of cognitive deftness; I really do appreciate your time and energy in this.]

When you don't address specifically the points I raise, I'll assume we're in agreement and move on. Thus, the theory that the people running CESA are "foreigners" who don't understand the "U.S. sports scene" I think has been put to rest. If this is not so, please let me know.

Regarding what marketing is and marketing isn't. There's a fundamental, business-school definition of what marketing is. The most general definition is that marketing is money spent to increase awareness of your products/services. If you run a successful business, marketing has to be tied to a business result. It would be wonderful if CESA's revenue were raised or costs were lowered, through this -- but they won't be. CESA's "brand awareness" in SC isn't going to be helped one bit by this sponsorship ; I'd venture to guess that there is no one on the all-* teams [e.g., all-area, all-region, all-state, north-south, etc.] or who wants to make the teams that hasn't heard of CESA. I realize that this might sound arrogant, and I honestly hope it doesn't, but I know the arguments made within CESA to do this since I was involved; I'll cover in a concurrent thread my first-hand knowledge of the financial evaluation process undertaken for this.

In terms of your being confused and/or my reading things into your post. Dude -- I'm the one that is confused, not you! But I do actually take the things you say at face value. It's an old tactic to attempt to make a point by putting forward some position and then saying "...I'm not necessarily advocating it..."; but when you do this without articulating the other side of that position it is semantically equivalent to your taking that position. Sorry -- but that's the way it is when you're discussing something. To say, "I'm not necessarily advocating it, but some say we should impose the death penalty for traffic violations" advances a point of view in a discussion that unless addressed in the original includes the counter-position. That's why we're discussing it.

College coaches of highly successful programs always face the prospect of losing some of their best players to play in national scrimmages and games. What do they do? I don't think that there is any single policy. However, it's my belief that a high-level college coach that said "I don't want US Regional or National team players on my team because they might miss some practices or games" would not be a college coach for very long. It would be like Real Madrid saying that they didn't want Zidane because he missed practices/games to play for France. Suicidal, non-real world behavior. I know that the more successful college programs, such as UNC's women program, actually seek out regional and national team players and promote players for inclusion on the national teams.

Your dismissal [through ignoring it] of the fact that the NCAA regulates when colleges can scrimmage and when they can't still confuses me. And you never answered the fundamental question, to wit, is your theory that the state ODP process should shut down for this 16 weeks -- or just club? How about the regional pool teams? The national pool teams? The US national teams? Should the NCAA and the colleges change the spring seasons, the only times that they'll schedule scrimmages, for this 16 weeks? Any theories on this?

Toward the end you lapse back into an "either/or" mentality, "what is so and so more proud of" and the like. Here's the fundamental point I'm making to you; what you're witnessing through alliances such as the SCHSSCA and CESA is the death knell for this "either/or" way of thinking. It's terribly early in this process, and some from all sides of the debate will have to be dragged kicking and screaming toward where we're going, but we're starting to move in the right direction. To roughly paraphrase Churchill, it's not the beginning of the end, but rather the end of the beginning. We shouldn't have to make our kids choose whether to play at the highest level regionally and nationally or play high school; we can rise up above all of the petty "us versus them" thinking and instead work together to benefit soccer in South Carolina.

Regarding your mother; I'm sure she's a fine person -- she had to be to raise someone as bright and giving as you with your tireless work as a volunteer leader for our high school. And I know your daughter is wonderful as is anyone else's daughter you mentioned. However, I'm completely confused as to what it is that I'd feel guilty about -- a failure of imagination on my part, I'm sure. Is it CESA's "surreptitious" motives"? Is it guilt over not shutting down CESA 1/3 of the year? Is it advocacy of "player choice", i.e., offering college scrimmages in which a kid might decide it's more important to play against Clemson or USC than it is to miss a single practice a year? Or something else entirely? Help me here, please.