Paraphrasing you, why do you say the 50% rule is short term? What, long-term is going to be different, in your estimation?<<
I said I didn't think it would have a short-term impact. I don't know of many teams consisting of 50% of players from outside of a district. I think it could have a longer-term impact if South Carolina clubs improve and draw more kids from outside of their district.
>>And why do you oppose it? <<
Two reasons: (1) it attempts to take a small state with 4.5M people and effectively makes it smaller by limiting inter-district operations and (2) it was created seemingly out of whole cloth rather than going through the bylaw modification process.
SC teams have enough demographic and historical problems trying to compete against teams from the larger metropolitan areas outside of our state (e.g., Atlanta) -- I hate to see the SCYSA attempt to put yet another obstacle in the way.
>>Do you really want a clear and unfettered market place without any rules other than survival of the fittest?<<
I've been through the bylaws, code of ethics, rules, etc. of the SCYSA -- there are pages and pages of rules. In just my opinion, I don't think we suffer from a lack of rules.
>>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.<<
Not to go on too much of a tangent...but, yes...put me in the pro-Wal*Mart contingent.
>>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 know we've rehashed this several times, so I'll absolutely keep this short. I absolutely understand that you believe this is a good thing. See my reasons above for why I don't like the rule and why I think it's a bad thing.
>>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. <<
I agree with you on partnering. I disagree with you with respect to the "overwhelming" argument. Why? The same reason that I'm glad that there's a Wal*Mart where I live. Studies show that grocery prices go down an average of 15% in an area Wal*Mart opens a store. Other grocery stores find that they have to either compete better on price, or compete on some other aspect of the shopping experience.
I'd like to see the Columbia select clubs compete on who can offer the best services. One might pick a lower cost model, one might pick better developmental training, another might pick the best elite teams. Unfortunately, we're not going to see that -- because instead they'll focus on complaints to limit competition rather than focusing on an increased level of services.
>>Is there a subjective line there? A contradiction? I'm sure there is....but I guess only if you look hard enough.<<
I understand your point and honestly don't think that there's a contradiction.
>>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.<<
Again, let me make this clear: I'm not arguing that Bridge is illegal based on either what I want or because it makes sense -- I'm simply reading the precise language of the SCYSA decision, then I'm reading the precise language that Bridge uses to describe itself, and I'm drawing what appears to me to be the inescapable conclusion that the SCYSA has outlawed partnerships, alliances, or whatever else you want to call cooperation among clubs.
