In reading what I wrote and the responses, several other notes:
  • If you change the term "CESA" to "Pearse, Andrew, etc.", I'd agree that a "purely advisory capacity" wouldn't make much sense. Putting "CESA" in doesn't make any sense at all.
  • I think it's pretty harsh to call CUFC a country club type of club. CUFC has done a better job than I expected -- and I believe that most expected -- of pulling off a pretty complex merger. Even some of their most egregious mistakes -- such as the incredibly large team sizes in their first year in which they were trying to please everyone -- have been reconciled. While I wish that they would switch from a group of part-time parents trying to run things to allowing full-time soccer professionals to run things, they've done pretty well.
  • There are infinite models out there that work well for different purposes. I've always called out CRSA as a great model of both a feeder club and a club attempting to penetrate and underserved markets for youth soccer. I think that Bridge was a very good attempt at a different model and may still be a very good attempt at a different kind of club; however, the folks I talk to from the lower part of the state are not as happy with it as I'd hope.
  • One thing I'd like to see is better investment by a lot of the clubs in the state. The responsibility of a club, particularly a large club, is not just to manage existing programs but to invest in and grow those programs. Right now for example, there are only a few clubs with a plethora of field resources -- our larger clubs should be investing in increasing those resources.