Coach P I respectfully disagree...
Every club in the state has development as a goal for its players. But development is both age and skill specific.
I agree you should play competetive teams to develop the players knowledge and skill but it should be done in the right environment.
If I followed your logic then Bridge 94 Gold should should be playing with the 92s simply because they will be challenged more.
Getting physically, technically and tacticaly beaten every game does not promote learning and most of all enjoyment of the game. A coach should not only challenge their team, but then also provide success. After all we should be teaching that learning to play the game well will result in enjoyment of a job well done, a win, etc.. This should be presented by a coach to his parents at the beginning of the season.
You cannot learn to win without learning to lose, but you only learn one thing if you always lose.
So it would seem to me that a better strategy may be to place them in challenging tournaments or scrimmages/friendlies and provide opportunity for success elsewhere.
Lastly by U15 (probably U16 for girls) those who will play at the highest level have already develop their interest and the technic and basic tactics necessary to play the game well. At this time higher level players are introduced to speed of play and mainly team tactics in attacks /formation/defense, etc.
So placing two teams in the highest league available simply because you have the numbers makes no sense unless the capability to compete exists. Therefore a choice was made to place teams in the league.
CESA and Bridge, to my knowledge do not place teams in the highest level unless they can compete. The results show in chart. Even their B teams are high competetive teams.
