SC Soccer Forums SCSoccer.com Forums Club Soccer & ODP SCYSA Special Commission Report

Sometimes...the truth hurts

coldhardtruth- you are making my head spin because you are talking in circles. I think the Bridge and SSC Alliance benefits SSC more than you think...
Sometimes....the truth hurts...

Cold&Hard,

Well, it looks like you might actually get IT….but, that only makes me wonder why you have such a problem with The Bridge FA. Is it actually The Bridge, or certain people associated with The Bridge?

For the parent of a Rec player, and many Classic players, they probably have no interest whatsoever in the Bridge. This is mainly because they don’t see their child ever playing at that level, and they have not put enough thought into the higher levels of soccer to think it might concern them in some way. If you would have asked me several years ago if I could ever see myself spending so much time and money on soccer, I would have told you that you were crazy. But, as I have seen my child continue to grow, I have change my views considerably.

I don’t know about the numbers you threw out (Rec and Classic vs Challenge), but they seem reasonable to me. And, yes, I agree with you….the Bridge is for a chosen few. But, the wording makes it sound like it is an elitist organization, which it is not. It is merely another option for those players who want and/or need to play at a higher level of competition. It is a choice AVAILABLE to them.

If a Mt. Pleasant player comes and tries out for a Bridge team, but does not make it, chances are he/she will go back to Mt. Pleasant. Same with a SSC player. But, the point is that these players who DO want to play at a higher level now have a choice. Sure, SSC had Challenge teams before, and most of the Bridge teams now may be made up of a majority of former SSC players, but like I said, this whole thing takes time.

A good example would be the Bridge FA 91 Boys team. They have always been a fair team. When they went to the Bridge, they made some player changes, got a new coach, and have since added at least one player from Mt. Pleasant and a few from the Hilton Head area. This is a whole different team now. I have seen this team before and after these changes, and I can tell you that this team is now a serious contender for the State Cup. It has taken a couple years, and a lot of frustration for a lot of people, but it is now paying off.

I disagree that it is ALL about winning…..another example…..the Bridge FA 92 Boys Red team. They are a true U12 team playing in the U13 Challenge division. Last year, while they were playing in their own age group, they faced virtually no competition in this state, and killed everyone. They chose to move up a year this past season, and finally faced serious competition. For playing up a year, they did very well. They finished the Fall season in 6th place out of 13 teams. If it was all about winning for them, they would have stayed where they were.

I’m not sure where you get the “getting the most for their dollar” from. I am paying more now for the Bridge than I was at SSC, but nothing has really changed, except for the name of the club.

I think what the Alliance member clubs get out of being a part of The Bridge is that they can then claim part of the success of The Bridge FA. Summerville Soccer Club can now use The Bridge FA as a recruitment tool. The more successful The Bridge becomes, the more people who want to play for them. If they try out for a Bridge team, but don’t make it, maybe they stay at SSC.

Sure, SSC was doing okay before the Bridge, and sure, Mt. Pleasant was doing okay before the Bridge. But, there are a lot of people who feel that “okay” is not good enough. Prime example is CESA. St. Giles and GFC were doing fine before their merger, but what happened after the merger? They went from pretty good to great. Since not every club in the Charleston area has joined The Bridge, it will take a little longer to show that the concept is a good one.

Another example of how The Bridge might help SSC. I spoke to the parent of a player on one of Stratford’s soccer teams. The player wore a Bridge t-shirt most every day to tryouts. The parent told me that other players constantly came up to their son with positive comments about The Bridge. These are all players who have only ever played Goose Creek Rec or for GCU. If some of these curious players decide to come out for a Bridge team in a few months, maybe some that don’t make it will decide to stay with SSC. Again, only time will tell.

The way I see it, SSC originally had the choice to either embrace and accept the Bridge FA concept, or simply lose players to it. Mt. Pleasant, so far, has chosen to NOT embrace The Bridge, and they will continue to lose players until someone over there in a position of authority realizes that it is only hurting them to not join. Mt. Pleasant will not be able to compete at the higher levels of soccer by themselves. They will have to join forces with someone else, whether it be The Bridge, or another club. I don’t see them hooking up with SSC (which is one reason the Bridge was formed) so that pretty much leaves one other group.

If a family moves into the Charleston area and decides to look at SSC for their soccer needs, SSC can tell them, “we offer rec, classic, and as a member of The Bridge FA, challenge – of which we have won several state cups recently.

If the same family decides to look at Mt. Pleasant, they get a similar story, but no option of a challenge program that has shown such success recently at the State level.

True, the State is only so big, but it will be a LONG time before the Charleston area's soccer resources are max'd out.

Yes, the truth does hurt sometimes….but, only to those who care, and only to those who choose to ignore the obvious. Rec and Classic players who have no interest in playing at a higher lever of soccer could care less about the Bridge, and their parents typically do not think about the big picture like the higher level players’ parents do. When my son played Rec, all I cared about was paying my $25, getting a t-shirt, and watching my boy play. Now that I see what he can do, the sky is the limit….high school Varsity, College, Pro? Who knows, but at least we are thinking about it…..and we now have options….

Well said. I absolutely agree; there's no doubt in my mind that the Bridge alliance of clubs is a positive thing for the kids of Charleston and South Carolina in general. Its next challenge is obviously to grow on the girls side so that it can achieve the kind of success the boys side has experienced.

If I were the leaders of Bridge I'd be calling CESA and UCSC and figuring out ways to overturn the SCYSA "no partnership" decision -- it appears the weakest of their decisions (i.e., the 50% district rule is very specific and applies to SCYSA sanctioned teams; the partnership rule is vague and appears to apply to non-SCYSA sanctioned components of club operation that lie outside of teams) and hopefully a grievance or appeals process to the USYSA/USSF can be found.

Bridge is a USCS/SCYSA dual affiliated club. I honestly believe that the SCYSA is used to thinking of clubs as being "owned" by the SCYSA and thus the SCYSA has complete oversight of everything a club does. With dual affiliation, it becomes much clearer that no affiliating organization has 100% oversight of any aspect of a club's operations; just the entities within the club that the club chooses to have the affiliating organization sanction.

Belligerent,

I think you wrote a great post. I like the concept of Bridge.

Rec, the beginning of competitive/select, and classic all stay at a "local" level. For those kids capable of playing at a higher level....Bridge exists.

Chico,

I'm assuming the "no partnership" decision runs back into the recent CESA-Coumbia situtation. How do you perceive that impacting Bridge?

What is the 50% district rule and how do you see it effecting Bridge, CESA, or some other Club?

Not challenging.....but trying to understand.

Thanks...

OK, I stopped being lazy and went back to page 1 and looked at the decision. I hate reading stuff like that.

Here's what I see, Chico, correct if necessary.

1. The 50% rule I always thought of as an inter-state thing. Living on the border....I've heard of this but thought it dealt with residency. As in, 50% of your team has to be from SC.

Wrong....50% of your team has to come from the District your Club is assigned to.

Wouldn't effect Bridge unless they start recruiting lots of players out of the middle 3rd of the state or from out of state.

Same with CESA....so long as they stick to a majority of players in their district, no impact.

2. No Partnership rule doesn't impact Bridge, because as they said....Bridge is a distinct CLub.
For CESA or someone else to do this....they too would need to create a 3rd party organization that all participants feed into.

My opinion: I don't see why any of this needs to be amended. Looks fine to me. If a player from Fort Mill or Rock Hill or Columbia want to play with CESA...nothing is stopping them. In fact, this past year...a bunch of kids did just that, within the bounds of SCYSA rules. No individual or parental rights are being limited.

The problem becomes when over 50% of the roster comes from outside their district.

Building "bridges" (sorry) between districts creates teams that would look suspisciously like ODP teams, wouldn't it?

Big Daddy: I think you're correct that the 50% rule doesn't have a big short-term impact. It seems defined simply to keep clubs in one district from expanding to another district. I personally think it's a bad rule, but at least it's clearly drawn.

The partnership decision appears to be much broader in scope. The ruling doesn't say anything about districts; what it says specifically is

*SCYSA does not recognize the “partnership” between any SCYSA clubs. Each and every SCYSA club is an organization member of SCYSA and responsible for its own individual members and their own actions, as noted in SCYSA Bylaws 211, 212 and 231.

*All SCYSA clubs, including CESA, will immediately cease the advertising or promoting of a “partnership” with any other SCYSA clubs.

Please note the term "any" and the term "all." Also note that the SCYSA specifically says "All SCYSA clubs, including CESA", i.e., the ruling is for all SCYSA clubs, and CESA is specified only because NECSA's complaint singled out CESA.

You can go register all the SCYSA clubs you want, but they can't be in a partnership of any form with any other club with regard to SCYSA registered entities [e.g., teams, tournaments, etc.]

Here's the text describing the club structure of Bridge FA from the Bridge FA web site -- the club is clearly defined as a partnership (or alliance, or coalition, or whatever -- the bottom line is that what makes Bridge so innovative is what the SCYSA seems to be outlawing -- it's a cooperative venture among multiple independently registered clubs):

Club Structure

Bridge FA represents an alliance between area soccer clubs which will provide opportunities for the top tier (challenge-level) players at each alliance member club to train and compete together.

Because the motivation for the club itself stems from a desire to "include" everyone in the area, an invitation was extended to all local clubs to join the Bridge FA Alliance. One of the founding principles of the alliance is that member clubs will not offer Challenge or higher-level teams at their respective clubs and instead will serve as a feeder program for the BRIDGE FA which will begin training and competition for players in the U-13 age group for both boys and girls. This will allow players at the younger age groups to continue to have the opportunity to develop and train at their local club without having to travel outside of their community. Then, as competition and development requirements become more demanding at the older ages, that is when these players will unite under BRIDGE FA.

The alliance was formally created when the executive boards of SSC and JIYSC agreed to move forward. An open invitation has been extended to the other clubs in the area, but all players are always welcome to tryout for a chance to play for BRIDGE FA - regardless of former club or city of residence. It is only together, that any of us can hope to compete at the highest levels.

Summerville Soccer Club and James Island Youth Soccer joined the Bridge Futbol Alliance after recognizing that there was a group of players that could not be fully developed within the current structure. SSC and JIYSC are very proud of our ability to develop players from recreation, through classic, and into challenge play. However, there is a level of play and development, that can only be reached by players routinely training and playing with the best players in the area. Bridge FA, provides an avenue for these players to continue their personal development. Further, Bridge FA, allows SSC and JIYSC to independently operate and service a community based soccer program for the Summerville area and James Island. The combined clubs and Bridge FA working cooperatively can now provide the most comprehensive soccer development for players from the Summerville and James Island area. Both are proud to be a charter member of the Bridge Futbol Alliance

Darren Sweet, VP SSC & Dan Morrison, VP JIYSC

One other note on this, if it isn't clear already. I like and admire what Bridge FA is doing. I think it's stupid and wrong to disallow partnerships among clubs. In fact, I sincerely question whether the SCYSA has the power to do it. Can the SCYSA make rules about specific SCYSA events, leagues, or teams. Absolutely. But it isn't at all clear to me that the SCYSA has the purview to rule upon all aspects of a club's operations.

Nevertheless, it's one thing to have an opinion and it's another thing to read and interpret clearly specified language. The SCYSA outlawed Bridge as it's currently conceived and as it is defined on the Bridge web site. They may not have meant to do it, but they did.

Can Bridge find a loophole? Maybe. But after reading the SCYSA decision which appears to me to be created out of whole cloth and not based on the byrules of the SCYSA, each club needs to realize that they now exist and operate at the whim of potential complaintants and the SCYSA. In other words, a new ruling may be created any day -- and it's impossible to anticipate since the rulings aren't based on bylaws.

Wow. It took me 4 days to read all of the posts here. Very informative stuff. And very suspicious actions Mr Tryon. Having been a club and high school coach in the Columbia area, I can only say thank goodness I now live in Greenville and one day my kids (when i have them) will have the opportunity to play with CESA. Assuming things haven't changed drastically. Press on CESA!