|
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
The problem is in the talent pool available in South Carolina. In order for teams from our state to compete at the level of the other teams in our region (Florida, Georgia, North Carolina) we must combine. Look at the population in those states. There are just so many more players to choose from in those other areas. We don't have a Charlotte, Raleigh, Atlanta or Miami in our state. If we want to develop our best players to compete with these other states, this is the only way to go. Our focus is producing the best players we can. That doesn't take away from the average player. The average player can have fun playing soccer regardless of where he/she is playing. But the best players need to be challenged, and this is the only way of challenging them.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 87
throw in
|
|
throw in
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 87 |
quote:
Originally posted by Bear:
Soccerdog,
I'm a little confused. On one hand you are apparently very proud of the MPSC U16 Girls being able to attract what you call the best talent in the area, taken from your two other posts. Yet on the other hand you appear to be hopeful of the success of Bridge FA.
Given the stance of MPSC, and your apparent involvement, aren't those two opinions in conflict with each other?
Bear,
Yes, I am VERY proud of the MPSC U16s and their ability to continue to attract talent, especially this year. Several posters have already answered your question for me and I appreciate their responses. You see, we have to play the cards dealt to us and this year it is playing as an MPSC team. The aquisition statement was most appropriate because that is exactly what the merger would have been for this age group. No arguement there, please. AND yes, I do hope that Bridge is successful because it is the future, period! It just ain't going to happen this year for these girls. Nothing wrong with hoping for the right thing to do for the future, is it? You can support your team AND hope for the eventual improvement via merger, can't you? Or is it a fact that you cannot?
How many of your girls in this age group came to Legend tryouts? None. So, it isn't about playing on the best team in the lowcountry for many families. It is about NOT playing with the evil enemy from years gone by. My daughter, and several others, tried out a couple of seasons past and were welcomed warmly. We immediately became part of the family and continue to feel as such. Bridge may be the only way to overcome this attitude, and that is exactly what it is. If players really want to play on the most talented team with the best chance of success over the next two years, why are they refusing to do so? This is the real question for you, rather than finding a perceived inconsistency in my stance. By the way, I am involved with MPSC only as a player's parent.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 654
goal
|
|
goal
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 654 |
CIWS*GK (in all seriousness) I believe the number one purpose (written or unwritten) of the Bridge is to produce the strongest and most competitive teams in the state. They start off with that in mind. Everything after that is secondary. So, let's say they create one premier team, and one challenge team in the U15 boys age group. Theoretically (hopefully) these are two teams made up of the strongest players in the area. They (BFA) have now accomplished one of their main missions (of course, they want to actually bring home trophies).
Now that that is done, you have all the remaining players to worry about. Of course, these players are all important, but the MAIN purpose is to produce the strongest team(s). If these players did not make one of those teams, they will now be playing classic or rec. If it just so happens that there are not enough kids left to make up the same amount of teams as before, then that's just the way it has to be. You can't forget about these players, but again, when you prioritize what you're trying to accomplish, finding a place for them is not at the top of the list.
But, to address that, I don't believe any of the three clubs you mentioned has said that they will have only one classic team each. I would imagine that if enough U15 boys showed up at Mt. Pleasant, they would field two classic teams.
Darren, I am not an official spokesperson for the Bridge, so please correct me if I misstated any comments about BFA; and CIWS*GK, the same for you if I am wrong about the clubs fielding more than one classic team. But, even if there IS one less challenge/classic team than before, there is still rec.
I guess everyone involved has to weigh the options - is it more important to try and field the strongest team(s) possible at the expense of possibly losing some players, or is it more important to involve as many players as possible at the expense of having the most competitive team(s)...
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 34
kick off
|
|
kick off
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 34 |
CIWS,
Belligerent is correct with regard to the number of teams. Bridge FA is looking to only field two Challenge teams. However, there should be no limiting factor for the local clubs to field multiple Classic teams, if the numbers, desire, and ability warrant. So your use of those numbers of teams is not an accurate analysis, taken at face value.
With that said, it may be that the number of teams does decrease, but there are factors that have more control over that than Bridge FA.
Soccerdog,
I too appreciated the comments and perspectives of others, and now yours too. Yes, I agree that you can support your team and hope for the future.
As is often the case when peoples opinions are quoted, it's a risky endeavor because it may be taken out of context. I take this quote from your post, because I believe it represents several aspects that are relevant to the discussion of what Bridge FA is intended to do.
"How many of your girls in this age group came to Legend tryouts? None. So, it isn't about playing on the best team in the lowcountry for many families. It is about NOT playing with the evil enemy from years gone by."
In reading this quote, it starts out as "your's and ours". Bridge FA was/is intended to overcome this. A neutral entity provides a place for people to migrate to, so it's no longer your's and our's, but an inclusive our's. Again, not playing with the evil enemy. I've said several times, MPSC players won't play for SSC and SSC players won't play for MPSC, hopefully, they will play for Bridge FA.
I was not looking for an inconsistency in your stance. I was looking for root causes and hopefully solutions, but more importantly, people willing to help identify, discuss, and implement solutions. As has been pointed out, only through discussion and effort are we going to be able to provide the best opportunity for the low country players.
This topic started out as a comparison of tryouts, and has gone all over the place. Perhaps it's time for a new topic.
|
|
|
|
