Soccer16: I'm not sure what you disagree about in "soccerislife"'s post, so I'll try to assume very little here.
There is no "transfer window" after the championship of a particular age and gender bracket. The way to think about this is that once that championship occurs, the kids no longer are associated with that team or club (unless they win a state championship, in which case they are associated with the team and club until they lose regionals, lose nationals, or win nationals). After all, this isn't indentured servitude -- these children are not associated for life with a team and club.
What "soccerislife" is talking about is a relatively new requirement by the SCYSA that kids who transfer during a season get the approval via signature of the club from which they are transferring. Failing to get that signature results in the child being penalized via a delay in when they can be rostered on the team to which they are transferring. I'm hard on the SCYSA; but this is yet another example of a rule that hurts players and only helps clubs, i.e., it is yet again another example of the SCYSA attempting to transfer power from players to the club. Not surprising, given that the SCYSA is paid by clubs and not by players -- but yet again a disheartening move by an organization that seems to repeatedly take an "anti-player/anti-choice" position.
Regarding the "watering down" of the league, I assume you're referring to the "challenge league" and not RIIIPL-East. You're right -- better players choosing better teams tends to make the challenge league weaker when those teams compete in RIIIPL-East. Of course, it makes the RIIIPL-East league stronger, and helps South Carolina field better teams in RIIIPL-East. What's the old saying -- God does not give with two hands?
Then again, I think all of this is simpler if you take the point of view of what's best for the children involved. Respectfully, I think the last sentence of your post reveals a mindset that is somewhat anti-player. A child transferring clubs is doing so because the child (or the parent) wants something different from what her or his club is offering. It could be more challenge, it could be a different social setting, etc. Clubs don't "transfer" players between seasons -- and from a player point of view "clubs" never transfer players -- players make a decision to transfer for their own set of reasons.
Every time that the SCYSA, or a club, or any other organization makes it more difficult for a player to exercise his or her choice, it adds a burden to that player. Now -- is some regulation probably right? Of course, after all, you want to balance the good and harm done to both the transferring player and the players on teams from and to which the player is transferring. But the continued progression of attenuating choice for players is a step in the wrong direction, and hints to a rottenness at the core foundation of some of our affiliating organizations which profess to be focused first and foremost on what's best for the player.
