SC Soccer Forums SCSoccer.com Forums Club Soccer & ODP SCYSA Special Commission Report

>>[thomaspietras] I would respectfully suggest that there is a certain amount of bitterness (my perception) in your posts regarding SCYSA and NECSA.<<

I understand the perception. And you're right, it's easy to misunderstand on a message board. For example, while I at times don't find you at all neutral in these discussions, I understand that it could simply be my own misperceptions (or my own bias.) Perhaps that works both ways.

I'll spend a bit of time talking about any emotion I can detect within myself.

I know that was bitter about one thing -- and it was being lied to on the message board earlier about this subject. Chapindad did the honorable thing and bowed out of the discussion; I wish everyone at CSC had been as honorable. But I think I'm over that.

Regarding the SCYSA, my primary emotion is disappointment. While I think that they made a bad faith ruling created from whole cloth, I could have justified it a bit more if they had explained why this is good for the youth of Columbia or just if they had referenced their mission and stated why this was appropriate for developing and promoting youth soccer in South Carolina. I'm not the smartest guy in the world, but I can't figure out how this benefits Columbia or South Carolina youth. I've repeatedly asked someone to tell me a theory on this -- and been met with absolute silence.

Regarding Ron Tryon, there's a part of me that really admires the guy in terms of his results. He aggressively "swung for the fences" and got almost all of what he wanted. If I were a shareholder in a public for-profit company which he led and he did that, I'd be cheering. But as a leader of a non-profit that is an association member of an organization that says its mission is to develop and promote youth soccer, I can't figure out how his complaint does anything but help NECSA and reduce the options of the youth of Columbia. Again, I've begged on this message board for any other interpretation; and it's been met with resounding silence. I thought asking for a list of children, parents, and coaches, by the way, went beyond all bounds.

Finally, I do feel sorry for the CESA folks. I would think that they're probably nonplussed by all of this. I read the bylaws and rules and there's no way I could have anticipated either the complaint or the decision. They responded to some players, parents, and coaches who asked for more in Columbia when they announced the Columbia expansion -- how were they to know that new rules would be created seemingly expressly aimed at them? And somehow they get portrayed as an evil empire who ignored all of the rules to do this.

>>[coldhardtruth] What if Cesa wanted to start an alliance with Columbia clubs to field Challenge teams...Would that be the right thing for Colunbia kids?<<

I think you've hit the nail on the head. If Bridge FA is legal, then CESA needs to change the name of what it's doing with CRSA from a "partnership" to an "alliance" and all is well with the world.

Chapindad: When I said the following "[...] the two coaches in the original announcement both resigned and then asked CESA for jobs." I am now assuming I was wrong.

Here's an accurate statement based on what I hear. One of the two coaches resigned and then contacted CESA and asked CESA for a job. The other of the two coaches contacted CESA and asked CESA for a job and verbally agreed to a job and gave CESA permission to put out the Columbia expansion release with his name in it. Both of them contacted CESA, CESA did not initiate any contact with them concerning a job.

Because he contacted another club, asked for a job, verbally agreed to a job, and gave permission for the release of information about his joining another club, I had assumed that the coach had already resigned. I actually have no proof of when he resigned. So if you tell me that he didn't resign until then...well...I'm going to trust you on it. Not sure why he'd do that...but if you're willing to go on the record then I believe you.

I made a factual mistake; I apologize. Thank you for calling it out; I learned something I didn't know tonight.

At the same time, it appears that you're still angry about this. Might I continue to suggest that your anger is misplaced?

Under this ruling Bridge FA is obviously not a legal club in SCYSA. How could it be if Mr. Sweet is president of Bridge and SSC. They are currently in violation of the ruling by not removing any reference to a partnership or alliance from their web site. Both CESA and CRSA removed the partnership announcements from their public web pages. Mr. Sweet and Bridge seem to think that this ruling does not apply to them. They are going to find out that all SCYSA clubs means all SCYSA clubs.

Chico,

You can suggest anything you like, But I would suggest the same about you.

Emanuel Ravelli:

I would not hold my breath waiting for SCYSA to repond to questions/discussions here at scsoccer.com.

First, I think there is a (probably legitimate) aversion to using an informal forum like this to explain official board actions.

Second, there is a true dislike among some SCYSA board members for scsoccer.com. While there are many rational, informed, insightful soccer folks (like you and I) who read and post here, there are also a fair number of "yahoo's" who post anonymously, make personal attacks, etc.

I personally find it better to endure the "yahoo's" in order to engage the rational folks, but it is not too difficult to understand their approach (to ignore the forum altogether).

Of course, if members of the SCYSA board are actually posting anonymously, not sure I would know.

I DO know that there is at least one SCYSA board member, lurking out there. So, I'll say "Hey there".

Mr. Bridge is full of it. he wont discuss things when its not anonymous

IF there is a an SCYSA BOD member out the how is it different from anyone else posting an opinion?

If SCYSA didn't "react" to an opinion that differs from them in an negative manner we would not have this probem.

SCYSA BOD (in the past) have taken the position that they could not be wrong. Well as we all know that just isn't true.

People would post w/ their real names if SCYSA wouldn't hold their opinion against them.

>>[Chico] At the same time, it appears that you're still angry about this. Might I continue to suggest that your anger is misplaced?<<

>>[Chapindad] You can suggest anything you like, But I would suggest the same about you.<<

I hope I've called out the events well enough so that I've shown you why I believe your anger is misplaced. If not, please let me know and I'll try to do a better job of explaining my perspective.

Could you tell me where you perceive my anger is directed and why you believe that it is misplaced?

>>[Keyser Soze] IF there is a an SCYSA BOD member out the how is it different from anyone else posting an opinion?<<

SCYSA BOD members are governed by the SYCSA code of ethics for administrators. If I were one of them I'd be very careful about publicly identifying myself and saying anything that could later be used as fodder for an ethics violation. SCYSA parents and players are governed by much less restrictive rules concerning self-expression. For example, BridgeFA can't publicly identify himself and criticize an SCYSA decision on this message board; if so as an active administrator he'd be guilty of a violation of the code of ethics for administrators concerning trying to change SCYSA rules. This isn't theoretical stuff; angry people in clubs complain to hurt other people who actively express opinions. Many administrators in clubs haven't even read the code of ethics and are shocked when the learn the hard way that public expression is limited.

I'm glad that at least one SCYSA board member lurks out there; while I understand not posting given the current SCYSA code of ethics it would be incredibly insular behavior not to read what the more passionate youth soccer advocates in South Carolina are thinking. I actually think that the fact that the many of the SCYSA have "a true dislike" for the message board is not a positive attribute of someone in their position. I'm really glad that thomaspietras is on here; he does a great job in my opinion of representing what I perceive as an SCYSA point of view.

I believe that the SCYSA BOD has been perceived by most clubs as having done a good job representing them -- that's why they continue to be re-elected year after year by the clubs. Now, it's my opinion that they made a massive mistake in this case -- they made a weak youth soccer state even weaker and opened the door very wide to USCS as an alternative for many clubs -- but that doesn't mean the majority of the clubs feel this way. As people have said, there's a perception out there of CESA as an "evil empire" -- I disagree with that perception and have explained in page after page why I disagree, but rhetoric only goes so far. And maybe the SCYSA with this decision will actually turn out to have made the state stronger -- after all, if you believe in a competitive market it's great to have USCS competing with SCYSA/USYSA.

If you feel that the SCYSA BOD should be replaced, then in addition to expressing your opinions on a message board you need to help your club understand it so that they can vote appropriately. But be ready to recommend alternative candidates who are willing to work pretty hard. While I believe the SCYSA made a huge mistake with respect to this decision, I do believe that the volunteers there spend a lot of time and energy on youth soccer.