Quote:

Here, again, is where an honest DOC or coach should convince them what's best for their future is to join the top situation for them personally, which in every age and every gender, is Bridge FA.

Only TWO "services" truly matter to develop top players: 1) other top players and 2) top coaches. All other "services" like college programs, sponsoring all-star, high school and ODP events/games, etc, etc are secondary bells, whistles and, for that matter, excuses for other people from clubs outside Charleston to keep Bridge FA at odds with their Lowcountry counterparts.



Perhaps I'm just playing devil's advocate here--and admittedly, it is a favorite tactic for making people actually think instead of just buying into rhetoric--but can you really claim, for all of those individual players out there, to know what the "top situation for them personally" in "every age and every gender" is? No one will argue against the statement that Bridge is an excellent organization that provides outstanding opportunities for its players. But does that make it the best--and only--viable option for ALL talented players? That seems to be assuming a lot. Again, I may not be the most qualified to judge; I've never had any direct experience with MPSC, and I've only had the opportunity to work for one season with CUSC, but after working with Andy Grist and others on his staff, I think I can safely say that ALL of the "top coaches" in the area don't work for Bridge. I'm not here as a representative of CUSC...just making an observation.

So, by your definition, if the only two "services" that matter are top players and top coaches, then evaluate this situation for me...

If a group of top young players in the Charleston area decide to go to a club other than Bridge--say, CUSC for example--and get to work under a coach who is known for getting the best out of his players--say, Andy Grist, for example--and, while perhaps not having the same concentration of talent at the beginning of the season, still learn to compete and give the Bridge teams quite a run for their money...is that a good thing, because there has obviously been serious development of top (and middle) players by a top coach, or is it a bad thing because it occurred without contributing to the dominance of the Bridge teams?

I hear what you're saying...but give credit where credit is due.

I've got good news and bad news...