>>[thomaspietras] Not sure who you are including in "everyone" or how you have concluded that these folks believe that everything has been "hunky dory". I assume that you are basing this on discussions with SOME people and your perception that the clubs have not been doing enough (and therefore that they believe there is no problem).<<
Yes, I was basing it on both word of mouth, response to this kind of data on this message board, even the initial reaction by past board members of constituent clubs that "My own opinion is that soccer players are soccer players and as long as a club focuses on serving soccer players, the gender issue will be irrelevant."
>>Over the years, I think a lot of people have believed that the Midlands girls programs (all of them) could have been better. I certainly remember discussions with people on the NECSA board and in the NECSA membership regarding ways to improve the soccer experience for girls.<<
If gender is irrevelent, why were you having these discussions? I'm not trying to "pick your post apart", I'm trying to figure out what appears to be a sudden 180 degree shift in your perspective.
In any case, I wasn't actually asking whether people thought that girls midlands programs "could be better." There's no doubt that with that vague a phraseology that close to 100% of people believe that. The questions are whether there's a recognition that girls soccer in the midlands (at least by every benchmark I've yet heard of or found) lags far behind other regions of the state and the what tangible, visible, things are being done or planned to improve girls soccer.
This isn't an abstract question. People are making decisions concerning tryouts in just a few months. People are talking to each other at high school games asking these questions.
>>As far as your ability to make judgements with respect to the potential efficacy of the new club--I would suggest that the only way to really do so (at this point in time) is to pick up the telephone and talk to Savitz and/or Miller and/or Tryon. I understand the implications of what I'm suggesting. I absolutely believe, though, that people of goodwill (and I believe that everyone I've mentioned falls into this category, including you, Chico)can put any past disagreements aside and can "talk through" things "for the good of the game".<<
When folks are too busy to distribute and/or publish information, I'm not going to burn their time by calling them and asking for more information than they've publicly released -- it's a fool's errand to a fool's end. Each club has to decide how to disseminate information and how much they want to disseminate -- just as each person interested has to decide to try to discover information. At this point, the preferred method seems to be "word of mouth." I use this message board to ask questions I get asked at almost every high school or college pool game -- and to ask questions I get via PM's, e-mail's, or telephone calls.
I realize that some of the topics that are raised on this message board are uncomfortable. And there's no doubt in my mind that there are those that would prefer this kind of dialogue not exist. I'm okay with that.
Again, thank you for engaging in this dialogue.
