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

Belligerent,
What might I actually get?
I have no problem with the Bridge or anyone associated with the club.I think I said before that the concept is a good one...I am not anti-Bridge.It gives my kids choices too.I come across negative because I bring up points as to why some clubs and individuals will not embrace the idea.

There are reasons why clubs choose not to join.Instead of taking the attitude that they are wrong and you are right..would'nt you like to know why? I do not know this for sure...but I believe that Mt Pleasant is city run and it may not be their choice as to whether they join are not...

CUSC has alot more Classic and Rec kids in their program.If everyone is not brought in under one umbrella.Then why would they join?Their challenge players would try out anyway...If that's what they want

I believe that the Bridge would of had more alliances if everyone was brought in.If it took bringing the best players in the Charleston and statewide area together to compete at the challenge level, then would the classic and rec programs benefit from this also?

Have to differ with you on the statement about classic players...Some like playing Classic because that's where their ability lies and they want to play and not sit the bench.There was a great turn out for the Bridge tryouts and alot of players got cut.Classic players and parents are just as passionate about the game as challenge.
Don't you think it would be smart to try and put some of the players that got cut on Classic teams right away? Instead of waiting a week or two to have SSC tryouts and those players chose to play somewhere else?
Sorry if I came across as if I do not like the Bridge concept..that was not my intentions...

GO BRIDGE!!! GO SSC!!! Better yet...GO LOWCOUNTRY!!!

Cold&Hard,

You did come across as anti-Bridge (to me, at least). Every post of yours regarding the Bridge prior to the last couple were almost completely negative towards the Alliance.

From the beginning, Mt. Pleasant made it very clear that they were not interested in joining The Bridge FA, but the entire note regarding the matter that was posted on the club’s website appeared to be all talk and no real substance. They kept saying that they were FOR this and FOR that, but never gave a good reason why they did not want to join.

Yes, I believe that MPSC is city-run...but where there is a will, there is a way. Not saying it would be easy, but if Mt. Pleasant wants to join the Alliance, I’m sure someone can figure out how to do it.

I personally never read any of the reasons why CUSC did not join – but, as they appear to be “sucking wind” at the moment, it seems that joining could have only helped them.

I’m not sure what you mean by “I believe that the Bridge would of had more alliances if everyone was brought in,” unless your intent is just to state the obvious. I believe that ALL clubs in the Charleston area were invited to join the Alliance.

I stand by my statement about Classic and Challenge players. In GENERAL, I believe that the Challenge players are more passionate about the game. Look at what these players do in their off time. I imagine if you took a poll, you would find many more Challenge players than Classic who spend a lot of time watching professional matches and going outside on their own to work on their skills….again, in general. Sure, the parents are just as passionate about their children playing the sport of their choice, but, again, in general, I believe the parents of the Challenge players will take more time to learn more about the game and future prospects.

I don’t know why SSC waits so long after Bridge tryouts to hold their own. But, when you think about the process...kids tryout, certain players are offered a position on the team, and then they are given a certain amount of time to make a commitment to the team. Seems like that could easily take a week or two.

Regarding where The Bridge FA now stands within SCYSA, Darren Sweet made a few comments back on page 5 of this topic (http://www.scsoccer.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=5;t=000711;p=5). As he stated, “Bridge FA is an organizational member of the SCYSA. The club structure and by laws were approved last year at the proper filing period.”

I’m not sure how SCYSA could approve a club and then turn right around several months later and say, “Uh, we thinks we mighta made a little boo boo….remember when we said you were approved? Well, pretend like that never happened.”

SCYSA would look pretty bad if they come back now and say they made a mistake by approving The Bridge FA.

Belligerent,
I think CUSC would of joined if all players were brought in..not just Challenge.I do not know if joining the Bridge would help with their financial situation...Remember.. there are future challenge players coming thru the classic program.Are you more passionate now at challenge then you were at classic.Remember what got your child this far...PASSION!!

Please post any information you hear about the SCYSA situation.I have read the statement over and over...I think Bridge will be alright.I am not real sure about the fifty percent rule on teams. The 16 team has players from all over.

Good luck with your season and I will try not to crawl under your skin...no promises

Chico,

Paraphrasing you, why do you say the 50% rule is short term? What, long-term is going to be different, in your estimation?

And why do you oppose it?

Do you really want a clear and unfettered market place without any rules other than survival of the fittest?

Many of us are free market folks in our "private" lives....but the meaning of free market varies widely. And when borders begin to blur it can get really weird. Everyone loves the cheap prices of Wal-Mart....but look at the textile jobs lost in SC over the last 10 years.

Doing your own thing is kind of a "Turkish Delight" treat. It tastes great....but soon becomes a habit and then you are enslaved by it.

In the Bible Paul said, "everything is permissible, but not everything is beneficial."

Some rules are wrong and some rules maintain order.

I think a rule that prevents CLubs from partnering
and offering better opportunities for kids is wrong. I think rules that keep Club A in 1 part of the State from overwhelming Club B from
another part of the state is a good thing.

Is there a subjective line there? A contradiction? I'm sure there is....but I guess only if you look hard enough.

From what I understand Bridge is open to any CLub that wants to participate. No one is being excluded. Thats different from the situation we argued about a few nights ago, which was more of a zero sum thing.

Yes..Anyone can play for the Bridge
You do not have to be an alliance member.I think they have a few players from N Carolina and Georgia playing there

Daddy,

"Turkish Delight"....is that like me and my Diet Pepsi?

Question. Is there anything from preventing clubs from working together if they cease the advertising or promoting of a “partnership” with any other SCYSA clubs.

*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.

Big Daddy,
That is the last time I call you that. It hurts my pride, next time it is Big Mama.

The whole club a and b thing. I get what you are saying, but how is this different from Charlotte coming in and taking Northside players at the expense of Tega Cay and Discoveries. Following your argument, I would think you don't want this unfettered market place and thus NOrthside would go to one club in Rock Hill. I am still not convinced that state lines have more importance than district lines.I'm sure Ive got something wrong here so hit me up Shanaynay.

kdlsc: Absolutely fascinating question; I've been wondering about that one for a few days. My complete and total guess is "the SCYSA won't allow it" -- not because of the wording of the ruling [which only specifically disallows advertising or promoting], but because the intent here seems to be to dissallow the CESA/CRSA partnership.

Here's another question I have reading this wording: what is an "SCYSA club?" Is Bridge a USCS club, an SCYSA club, or both? How does the SCYSA prevent a USCS club that is also a member of the SCYSA (as is Bridge) from doing any partnership it wants as long as tournaments, teams, and the like are properly registered with either the USCS or SCYSA?

Hurst,

Yeah, your Diet Pepsi and my 8 large cups of AM coffee. Once the coffee cartel realizes they have me they'll start jacking up prices and I'll be a goner.

Did you see "The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe"? C loved it....saw the movie twice and actually inspired him to go read the CS Lewis books. He's halfway thru the Chronicles series....