>>[USMNT2014] Chico, I believe you a placing very lofty expectations on the new CUFC.<<
I've never once stated my opinion concerning what will occur; what I've done is reflected what the numbers and history depict and then noted what it seems is expected by many CUFC fans.
>>In comparing CUFC to the 1st year CESA organization you are forgetting that CESA's competetion remained realtively weak.<<
Two things: (1) you are ignoring the fact that I didn't say that CUFC was expected by many to "sweep" anything -- what I said precisely is reproduced below:
Chico: The creation of CUFC and the number of teams and players they are sponsoring means to me that the issue is no longer how many state championships are "taken" from CESA; instead, the expectation has to be that CUFC will win as many as CESA in the 2006-2007 season. Anything else it seems to me would have to be a classified as a disappointment from a CUFC point of view.
To put it succinctly, this is the "parity" that others have spoken about on this thread.
The second thing you're ignoring is the fact that Bridge, a relatively small club/alliance, had such success in its first year taking two of four boys championships.
>>The 1st year CESA club should have been way ahead of the competition due to the total popluation from which their teams were selected. Whereas, CUFC has just increased their population to that of their competitors (we believe).<<
Here's a fascinating question: what do you believe CUFC sees its "population from which their teams are selected" and what do you think CESA sees as its "population"? My guess is you're going to say "Columbia" and "Greenville", respectively. I don't think this is correct.
>>There should be more parity in the league this year if anything but to think that anthing less than winning all age groups (ala CESA) is a failure, just doesn't seem right.<<
I'm confused; where did I say this?
