HappyDaddy,
Your post brings several different points, that when put together could be in conflict with each other.
Demographics of our state have been used numerous times to explain the lack of continual success when attempting to field "regionally competitive" teams. In short, my understanding is that in order for our state to produce regionally competitive teams, the boundaries for that team needs to extend beyond the geographic locality of that particular club, and gather players from around the state. I don't have the details for this, but there have been numerous threads about it.
It's these same demographics that cause the perceived problem of lack of competitive teams within the state. There is a small and finite number of players that have both the ability and desire to play on these regionally competitive teams. Ability here for me includes both the on the field ability, and the other factors, travel time, cost, etc. It is unfortunate that a player may have the technical ability and desire, but can't achieve that opportunity due to the other factors. So yes, there is the possibility that when clubs attempt to form these regionally competitive teams, and players migrate from their local clubs, then the local clubs and the statewide league may not seem as competitive. Again, there is a finite number of players that are in this group.
Without getting into a debate about the merits of and cost associated with the ODP system, it provides amplification of the demographics. Typically when ODP tryouts occur, SC considers is a big success to have 50 or so players. During the tryout process it becomes evident that not all 50 have the same ability level. So taking that in context with a team roster size of 16, out of this ODP group, you could theoretically field 3 teams, that "should" be regionally competitive, or at least the 3 top teams in the state. I believe the statistics prove that SC may produce 1 regionally competitive team out of that group. However, there are anomalies with that also. The NC ODP process has upwards of 200 players at tryouts. Using the same math, they theoretically could produce 12 regionally competitive teams, however typically they have 3 or 4 teams that in general are regionally competitive.
It can be said there are 4 levels of soccer within SC, although only 3 are defined. Recreation, Classic, Challenge, and RIII. Within this structure, opportunities exist for a player to find the right fit where ability and desire are a match for the requirements of that division.
So while you view recruiting as distasteful, and often times it may be, alternatively there can be some good in it. For example, if there is a player playing on a Classic team, but others see that player as having the ability to play on a Challenge team, if they are not informed of having the ability to move to the different level, then they may not reach their individual potential. There are some very good coaches/club directors out there that would point that out to the player, however, in the competitive environment that clubs are in, many will not. That notification then has to come from external to that players current team/club.
As for the "glory" of the club. That's a result of the competitive environment. No different than in the business world. Each organization strives to provide services for a sector of the market, but not all are going to have that capability, and some will do it better than others.
To limit the ability of clubs to service all sectors of the market, in my opinion, limits the vitality of youth soccer in general. When a sanctioning body takes steps to achieve parity, then, the benefits to the individual player is lost. Individual players are members of clubs, then placed on teams, and clubs are members of a sanctioning body. Teams are not members of clubs. To artificially attempt to keep SC clubs from forming regionally competitive teams, holds back a segment of the population, and severely limits individual choice and opportunity.
