My son plays on a 8U travel baseball team. It is parent coaches. The Head Coach right now got kind of thrusted into it when our first HC quit. Nice guy, but totally doesn’t know what he is doing in terms of youth coach. On our 8U team we have three siblings from the 9U team. One of those siblings on the 9U team is eligible to play 8U ball because he is of age along with another member of the 8U team. Those two 8U eligible players are struggling at 9U and not getting pitching and catching opportunities that I guess they think they deserve. So our HC emails the 8U parents saying that the two 8U eligible kids that play on the 9U team will play for us whenever they don’t have a 9U conflict. We already have 12 kids and this would take time away from other kids. I have never said a word to the coach’s in my life for any of my sons, but doesn’t this seem terribly wrong and sends the wrong message. If those 9U players who are 8U eligible wanted to play for the 8U team they should have tried out for it. Instead they tried out for the 9U team, the 9U team took them and is now using our team as like a practice squad to mollify parents who are upset their kids aren’t getting playing time at 9U. Was wondering what other people would do or say, knowing if I complain I probably hurt my kid because these guys might take it out on him as tue 9U/8U leadership is very cliquey.
What’s the max roster size? Is the plan for those kids to be backups when they come down or start? Are they paying anything additional to be on the team? I know my daughters soccer coach wouldn’t allow that, he only pulls eligible kids in to play when enough of our girls can’t attend a game or tournament and IMO that’s the only acceptable reason.
What’s the max roster size? Is the plan for those kids to be backups when they come down or start? Are they paying anything additional to be on the team? I know my daughters soccer coach wouldn’t allow that, he only pulls eligible kids in to play when enough of our girls can’t attend a game or tournament and IMO that’s the only acceptable reason.
We have 12 players. we have universal batting (meaning even if you don’t play field you still bat). The idea is for them to pitch and catch and start at that. They will take two ABs a turn from the present 8U kids and two more kids will be on the bench because they are in field. I also thinks it’s send a terrible message, whenever I was in a locker room my coaches stressed it’s about team etc. these guys aren’t on our team.
I'm joking just to show you how ridiculous that is.
Don't punish the players for the mistakes of the parents. But let this be the end of their days of "playing up". They shouldn't get to double-dip every season going forward. The experiment failed.
Of course, the parents of the bottom level players on the existing rosters will have some frustration. But in my experience, that's just travel ball.
Overall, this is why I believe that kids "playing up" on older teams should not be prohibited, but should truly be used sparingly and only when the players in question fall in the top ~third of the older team that they are stretching into. You do the kids no favors by having them play above their correct age group just to be the bottom-feeders on that roster.
Don't punish the players for the mistakes of the parents. But let this be the end of their days of "playing up". They shouldn't get to double-dip every season going forward. The experiment failed.
Of course, the parents of the bottom level players on the existing rosters will have some frustration. But in my experience, that's just travel ball.
Overall, this is why I believe that kids "playing up" on older teams should not be prohibited, but should truly be used sparingly and only when the players in question fall in the top ~third of the older team that they are stretching into. You do the kids no favors by having them play above their correct age group just to be the bottom-feeders on that roster.
If this is a school team then I get it. But if this is a league where parents are paying good money for their kids to play then it isn't a good idea. 14 kids on a team is a lot. It really depends on the situation and rules.
Quote:
If they meet the age requirement and they're better than the bottom 2 or 3 existing players on the 8U, they should play where they can most help the team. The other players on the team deserve that the program is putting out the best roster generally speaking.
Don't punish the players for the mistakes of the parents. But let this be the end of their days of "playing up". They shouldn't get to double-dip every season going forward. The experiment failed.
Of course, the parents of the bottom level players on the existing rosters will have some frustration. But in my experience, that's just travel ball.
Overall, this is why I believe that kids "playing up" on older teams should not be prohibited, but should truly be used sparingly and only when the players in question fall in the top ~third of the older team that they are stretching into. You do the kids no favors by having them play above their correct age group just to be the bottom-feeders on that roster.
If this is a school team then I get it. But if this is a league where parents are paying good money for their kids to play then it isn't a good idea. 14 kids on a team is a lot. It really depends on the situation and rules.
I don't know what the fee is in this particular case, but for my son's 8U, we aren't talking about a ton of dough. In my view, that money is not just about the games but about the immense about of practice reps they get, which if the coaches are doing their job, the impacted players here should not suffer.
If you look at it another way -- had the two players NOT played up in the tryout and roster construction process, its likely that the 2-3 kids who now get a little less playing time would have been cut from the program.
And I'll admit that my views on this are quite heavily biased. My son's travel ball team (same age) has 2-3 players at the bottom of the roster who really do not belong on a travel team. We routinely lose games as a result of trying to be inclusive to these kids in positioning and when their segment of the batting order comes up in a tight situation.
(Long story, but it's a big town and we had 25 kids try out, of which about 20-21 are truly deserving of playing travel ball. So we decided to keep all of the players and make 2 evenly split teams which we entered in the same league. Some people were in favor of going the A-team / B-team route, but we decided that for this age group, we would do ourselves a big favor by splitting and getting the 10-12 best players all big opportunities to pitch so that in 2 years or so, we can pivot to A-team / B-team and have an arsenal of pitching talent worthy of surviving weekend tournaments and etc. The teams train and practice together as one unit.)
Needless to say -- all of these types of situations are so heavily dependent on the overall depth of talent, and even moreso by the attitudes, messaging, and bedside manor of the coaches.
Wow. That is about 8x as much as my son's travel team costs.
I think we may be using the same terms to describe way different leagues/levels. I live in north jersey. When we say "travel team", that just means not the town recreation league, but where towns in the area all have a team where players had to try out and be chosen (sometimes 2 teams in a huge town like ours) and play games between the towns. The "travel" refers to traveling out of town, never really more than like 45 minutes away unless it's a tournament that the team opts into.
What you are describing sounds more like what we would refer to as a "select team" or sometimes a "club team". And I can see how sensitivities might be quite a bit more heightened in that case, not only because of the money but because the bottom end players are probably a lot better than what I am envisioning based on my experience.
No one wants their kid sitting on the bench for the coaches son so he can play on a 2nd team.
It sucks that they would even put other parents in this position.
the only time I have even a little soft spot for this type of thing is with a single parent and two kids in different age groups who can't be in two places at once. and that soft spot lasts about 1 second if its my kid on the bench.
Luckily I coach my kids hockey team most of the time and I would never pull this bullshit or allow it.
Isn’t there any sort or rules or bylaws that cover rosters in this league? I’d try to find and read them and see if there is a violation.
That said, the idea of having a different level/league for every year instead of in 3-year blocks like it was years ago (e.g., 6-9 year olds played in Minors, 10-12 played regular Little League, 13-15 played Babe Ruth, and then you either made the high school team or you found a new sport) creates a lot of these issues, and it also fails to provide the experience of playing behind the older kids, working your way into a starting position, and then graduating out of that level and repeating the process with bigger dimensions and tougher competition.
Those are important lessons (IMO) that translate to life much more than the benefit of making sure that the same kids get to be the stars of their 8U team, then their 9U team, then their 10U team, then 11U, then 12U, etc.
and yes, you want your kid to play, but in our contracts it says that equal ice time is not guaranteed and this is a competitive team. Meaning the program gets prestige and attention by winning or having success.
In hockey at least, there are town programs where equal ice time is expected, and winning is less a goal than fundamentals, but at least for hockey this is not an expectation.
That said, when I coach, every kid plays. Not necessarily equal amounts that's hard to do, but they all play.
I do think 8U is too young for this level of competitiveness, those kids should 100% still be focusing on fundamentals, but as they get into U10 and U12 and definitely U14 100% they should earn playing time. At the high school level not all the kids play and you need to develop that mind set in kids.
But what Essex posted about doesn't sound like that, it sounds like a coach or parent taking advantage of a situation to get their kid playing time on a team they didn't pay for at the expense of kids who did pay, and it's bullshit.
What bothers me is that the Assistant coach on the 9U team who is also an assistant coach on our team is pissed that his son is not pitching for the 9U team and wants his son to develop as a pitcher so he is putting his son on our team "whenever available" and bringing along the other 8U kid to make it look less problematic to develop his son. It is outrageous, but as I said, I am not sure I win by saying anything other than having some satisfaction in it.
The new coach in the OP needs to make the correct decision and tell the parents of those 2 kids playing up that they are going to have to ride it out and will readjust rosters in the offseason. Messing with 12 kids who did nothing wrong to appease 2 isn’t how I’d handle this.
That said, the idea of having a different level/league for every year instead of in 3-year blocks like it was years ago (e.g., 6-9 year olds played in Minors, 10-12 played regular Little League, 13-15 played Babe Ruth, and then you either made the high school team or you found a new sport) creates a lot of these issues, and it also fails to provide the experience of playing behind the older kids, working your way into a starting position, and then graduating out of that level and repeating the process with bigger dimensions and tougher competition.
Those are important lessons (IMO) that translate to life much more than the benefit of making sure that the same kids get to be the stars of their 8U team, then their 9U team, then their 10U team, then 11U, then 12U, etc.
There’s just too many kids for that. My daughter played on the u10 team as a 7 year old and that was by necessity because they only had enough 2014 and 2015 girls to make 1 teams. She can hold her own but the girls that are 9 are way way ahead, as they should be. I don’t see the benefit and neither does our coach. We just had tryouts and double the amount of girls signed up and attended and they decided to do a 2015 and 2014 only team which IMO is the correct move. And with soccer there really is no dominating - the ends pretty quickly unlike in basketball when a single player can impact the games greatly.
Quote:
and very "get off my lawn!"
That said, the idea of having a different level/league for every year instead of in 3-year blocks like it was years ago (e.g., 6-9 year olds played in Minors, 10-12 played regular Little League, 13-15 played Babe Ruth, and then you either made the high school team or you found a new sport) creates a lot of these issues, and it also fails to provide the experience of playing behind the older kids, working your way into a starting position, and then graduating out of that level and repeating the process with bigger dimensions and tougher competition.
Those are important lessons (IMO) that translate to life much more than the benefit of making sure that the same kids get to be the stars of their 8U team, then their 9U team, then their 10U team, then 11U, then 12U, etc.
There’s just too many kids for that. My daughter played on the u10 team as a 7 year old and that was by necessity because they only had enough 2014 and 2015 girls to make 1 teams. She can hold her own but the girls that are 9 are way way ahead, as they should be. I don’t see the benefit and neither does our coach. We just had tryouts and double the amount of girls signed up and attended and they decided to do a 2015 and 2014 only team which IMO is the correct move. And with soccer there really is no dominating - the ends pretty quickly unlike in basketball when a single player can impact the games greatly.
Are there more kids now then there were 35 years ago? Or are travel teams just more prevalent now?
When I was a kid, the only "travel teams" we had (granted, I grew up in Weehawken pre-gentrification, so it wasn't the most resourced municipal recreation program) were the all-star teams that were chosen from among the full Little League and Babe Ruth league rosters. Those all-star teams were incredibly selective, because they could be (and had to be, in order to pare each full league of three years worth of kids down to one roster). It wasn't because we had fewer kids back then than Weehawken has now; it was because youth sports weren't thought of the way they are now.
So if you are a parent of a truly talented kid IMO you should be signing your child up for the appropriate level of competition or learn to deal with how the lower levels are run.
I hear hockey is rough with regard to the traveling that's often required, but I have zero experience with that.
I will say it sounds like you're not getting much for your money.
If no other parents feel the same as you, I'd just wait out the season and move on.
if others do too I'd tell the coach how the parents feel.
this isn't a gripe about your kids playing time, it's legitimately calling out someone's bullshit.
I don’t think that’s the issue. His issue is kids not on the team will now be added with the team and that is definitely not how it should work.
Quote:
then this is the way it is, and will be until your child graduates high school. The best kids play, and each year there are new kids coming on and current kids moving on. If this isn't what you want then maybe sticking with a rec team is a better option. Traveling teams (and my experience is in soccer) isn't a place where everyone plays, its a place where everything is competitive and the top kids play.
I don’t think that’s the issue. His issue is kids not on the team will now be added with the team and that is definitely not how it should work.
I get it, and its definitely happened on my daughters teams. In a big club with many teams, there were always kids "playing up" for some reason. If they couldn't hack it the club would try to move them to a team more in their own skill level (or their own age), rather than lose them to another club. Not saying they will start or play, that will be determined by the coach after he sees how good they are, but it definitely has happened.
Its funny you say this because this has really been the decisive factor for me in keeping my mouth shut. My kid does not know or understand the nerve of this parent to put developing his kid over the development of other kids. In fact, one of the kids from the 9U team he is really close friends with and is happy to have him on his team. While I am not happy for my kid and I think he is on a poorly run team, it is not about me--its about him and he is having fun (in part because he does not know any better). In the end, it really comes down to whether I advocate for him when he does not know better and cannot advocate for himself.
Quote:
In comment 16126138 PatersonPlank said:
Quote:
then this is the way it is, and will be until your child graduates high school. The best kids play, and each year there are new kids coming on and current kids moving on. If this isn't what you want then maybe sticking with a rec team is a better option. Traveling teams (and my experience is in soccer) isn't a place where everyone plays, its a place where everything is competitive and the top kids play.
I don’t think that’s the issue. His issue is kids not on the team will now be added with the team and that is definitely not how it should work.
I get it, and its definitely happened on my daughters teams. In a big club with many teams, there were always kids "playing up" for some reason. If they couldn't hack it the club would try to move them to a team more in their own skill level (or their own age), rather than lose them to another club. Not saying they will start or play, that will be determined by the coach after he sees how good they are, but it definitely has happened.
It is more than that; it would be one thing if they said we are moving them to this team and they are on this team. I think that would be a tough pill to swallow, but I would not be as outraged as I am now when they say they will play with us "whenever available" while staying on the 9U team. The whenever available means whenever it is convenient for them so as to not miss their 9U games. So these two kids get to develop at the expense of the development of two of our 8u kids. That, to me, is the outrageous aspect of it.
Quote:
In comment 16126183 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
In comment 16126138 PatersonPlank said:
Quote:
then this is the way it is, and will be until your child graduates high school. The best kids play, and each year there are new kids coming on and current kids moving on. If this isn't what you want then maybe sticking with a rec team is a better option. Traveling teams (and my experience is in soccer) isn't a place where everyone plays, its a place where everything is competitive and the top kids play.
I don’t think that’s the issue. His issue is kids not on the team will now be added with the team and that is definitely not how it should work.
I get it, and its definitely happened on my daughters teams. In a big club with many teams, there were always kids "playing up" for some reason. If they couldn't hack it the club would try to move them to a team more in their own skill level (or their own age), rather than lose them to another club. Not saying they will start or play, that will be determined by the coach after he sees how good they are, but it definitely has happened.
It is more than that; it would be one thing if they said we are moving them to this team and they are on this team. I think that would be a tough pill to swallow, but I would not be as outraged as I am now when they say they will play with us "whenever available" while staying on the 9U team. The whenever available means whenever it is convenient for them so as to not miss their 9U games. So these two kids get to develop at the expense of the development of two of our 8u kids. That, to me, is the outrageous aspect of it.
Ok. The other thing I've seen pretty regularly related to this, and it may end up being what happens here too, is tournament play. This really pisses parents off. The 9U may have a different tournament schedule, so they would just show up at tournament time and take a spot of someone who has been starting up until then. It was all about winning the tourny.
as for me, I coached youth soccer from U8 to U12.
I actually had good experiences with the parents. Maybe because I was always ripping the rec council for setting some teams up to struggle intentionally. Most of the 'crooked' stuff I saw was at the admin level.
Maybe it was because although I certainly played some kids a little more than others, I was kind and helpful to every child no matter their skill level. So many coaches yell and berate these kids. These are 9-11 year olds. It made me cringe.
Ultimately, it's rec soccer, no one's getting paid. I never cared about the results provided we weren't getting skunked. We seemed to have a lot more success during indoor seasons than outdoor.
Great advise. When my son was very young he played some type of pewee football and I had to laugh after one game where they lost on the drive home I asked him if he had fun and his reply was an enthusiastic “ yeah I think we won”
I don't see a problem with swapping rosters within a program, as long as there's an understanding that just because the older kids are down for a game or series, it doesn't mean they get preference.
It's a crappy thing for some, a great opportunity for others, and it's all part of the fun. lol
I don't see a problem with swapping rosters within a program, as long as there's an understanding that just because the older kids are down for a game or series, it doesn't mean they get preference.
It's a crappy thing for some, a great opportunity for others, and it's all part of the fun. lol
It is not swapping rosters. The kids are not on our team, they are coming in whenever they don't have another 9u commitment.
Quote:
If not I wouldn't mention it or harp on it. This will only sour the experience for them. 8yo travel teams. Things have really changed in the last 20 years.
Its funny you say this because this has really been the decisive factor for me in keeping my mouth shut. My kid does not know or understand the nerve of this parent to put developing his kid over the development of other kids. In fact, one of the kids from the 9U team he is really close friends with and is happy to have him on his team. While I am not happy for my kid and I think he is on a poorly run team, it is not about me--its about him and he is having fun (in part because he does not know any better). In the end, it really comes down to whether I advocate for him when he does not know better and cannot advocate for himself.
This is the answer you need. It's 8U, not the Cuban national team. Let him have fun with his friend. If it's not bothering him, you shouldn't let it bother you.
And if you really think the team is poorly run, you should volunteer to coach. At least volunteer to help him without being a dick about it. I coached a million teams because I was one of the same group of guys that always volunteered. I love coaching my kids, but it's a grind sometimes.
What I am saying is to me the point of a good travel program is for the kids to be able to develop their skills in that sport through games, volume repetition in practice of all things baseball (grounders, pops, hitting etc) that you would not otherwise get in a rec league. Obviously, there are games being played and teams want to win; I want my kids to win, but at the end of the day, if the goal is to be the best travel team, you will probably be disappointed at some point. If the goal is to develop a good ballplayer and have your son or daughter maximize their potential and career (and by career I usually mean through HS), then I think travel sports can be very beneficial. It is like the rule of 10,000 that Malcolm Gladwell discusses. If you spend 10,000 hours at doing something, you can master it. Many chess players play 10,000 hours, only one is the world champion. My purpose in signing up my kid for travel is not to hang some trophy on the wall (or plaque, or tshirt that he will outgrow) but to get him to be a better player and enjoy the process. Obviously, winning is very important and I don't want to discount it, but it can't be the only measure for a travel organization.
So your goal is your son to play HS? If that’s your goal, they’re a different ways to do this. I’d be more than happy to share some advice. I don’t know it all, no one does. But I’ve seen a lot.
Every kid, and every parent wants their kid, to play all the time and it is a complete impossibility.
The only "fair" way to divvy up the time isn't fair to the kids who always show up and play their asses off and are successful at doing so.
Typically on a team of 12 I would have 4-5 players that met the above, 3-4 that were good players with lousy attitudes and 3-4 that had good attitudes but weren't very good players (in comparison to the rest).
It can't hurt to have a respectful conversation with the coach (especially if he is new at this), but your first conversation should be with your kid to make sure he is working hard and has a good attitude whether he is playing as much as he wants to or not.
Also - not sure of your league rules, but the league I coached in allowed both a DH and an EH and I would utilize both those things to get as many kids playing at once as possible.
If they want kids to play on 2 teams they should have been assigned as part of the 12 and also pay double fees.
So your goal is your son to play HS? If that’s your goal, they’re a different ways to do this. I’d be more than happy to share some advice. I don’t know it all, no one does. But I’ve seen a lot.
I am mature enough to discuss this and take nothing personally as I realize some will have different opinions.
I am all for development, but we make choices in that development. I don't get a refund if the coach I pay for private lessons isn't as good as another coach. He made the choice to play up, if that turned out wrong I don't see why it gets to be corrected at the expense of our children's (the 8U team) development.
But 99% of it I absolutely loved. and I felt after all the years of youth sports that I played and all those volunteer coach hours I benefited from, as long as I was able it was my duty to give something back.
I wasn't self-righteous or sanctimonious but I did try and weave some life lessons in to sports and coach the kids to be better on field and off the field. We had tons of great moments. A lot of wins, some tough losses that were great teaching moments, some struggles off ice for kids that also presented teaching moments and growth - in positive ways.
but I found it rewarding personally and I hope the kids I coached got something out of it.
The parental/organizational bullshit was tiresome, but if I had to do it all over again (my youngest is now in high school so my coaching days are over), I absolutely would.
A good coach and a bad coach can be equally influential in a young athletes life - just in different ways.
But 99% of it I absolutely loved. and I felt after all the years of youth sports that I played and all those volunteer coach hours I benefited from, as long as I was able it was my duty to give something back.
I wasn't self-righteous or sanctimonious but I did try and weave some life lessons in to sports and coach the kids to be better on field and off the field. We had tons of great moments. A lot of wins, some tough losses that were great teaching moments, some struggles off ice for kids that also presented teaching moments and growth - in positive ways.
but I found it rewarding personally and I hope the kids I coached got something out of it.
The parental/organizational bullshit was tiresome, but if I had to do it all over again (my youngest is now in high school so my coaching days are over), I absolutely would.
A good coach and a bad coach can be equally influential in a young athletes life - just in different ways.
I agree with all of this, except I was baseball, soccer, and basketball instead of hockey. I loved coaching my kids, I loved getting to know all the kids that made up the world my kids lived in, I loved teaching them all the stuff about playing "the right way". Some other coaches are such raging douchebags reliving their failed sports careers. I never shied away from taking the crappy players those jerks tried to avoid. I know I could provide a lot more to the guys at the bottom of the bench than the boys at the top whose dads were grooming them for scholarships at 8 years old. These were kids that didn't even know how to throw a ball. Or catch it. I hope I made a difference for kids like that. It was very rewarding for me, and a lifetime of memories I hope for my kids. I made it out pretty lucky with very few parent issues. Other coaches were always my biggest peeve.
Don't keep your mouth shut if it is hurting your kid's development. When I was younger I played on some village-run sports teams where nobody gets cut. One soccer league the coach was abysmal (basically the coach's kid and all of his friends got to play whatever positions they wanted and played all game whereas everyone else played whatever was left, usually defense, and got substituted for to give everyone playing time when there were enough players to have subs). What made it worse was in previous seasons I had had a great coach who my parents are still friendly with. His policy was that unless you wanted a specific position that others would find less desirable or were clearly a stud if you played defense in the first half you played forward in the second half or vice versa and that everyone rotated playing in goal. My parents spoke up about the abysmal coach (it helped that they knew some people who ran the program) and I don't think he was ever a coach again after that season.
Quote:
except with one of my kids.
But 99% of it I absolutely loved. and I felt after all the years of youth sports that I played and all those volunteer coach hours I benefited from, as long as I was able it was my duty to give something back.
I wasn't self-righteous or sanctimonious but I did try and weave some life lessons in to sports and coach the kids to be better on field and off the field. We had tons of great moments. A lot of wins, some tough losses that were great teaching moments, some struggles off ice for kids that also presented teaching moments and growth - in positive ways.
but I found it rewarding personally and I hope the kids I coached got something out of it.
The parental/organizational bullshit was tiresome, but if I had to do it all over again (my youngest is now in high school so my coaching days are over), I absolutely would.
A good coach and a bad coach can be equally influential in a young athletes life - just in different ways.
I agree with all of this, except I was baseball, soccer, and basketball instead of hockey. I loved coaching my kids, I loved getting to know all the kids that made up the world my kids lived in, I loved teaching them all the stuff about playing "the right way". Some other coaches are such raging douchebags reliving their failed sports careers. I never shied away from taking the crappy players those jerks tried to avoid. I know I could provide a lot more to the guys at the bottom of the bench than the boys at the top whose dads were grooming them for scholarships at 8 years old. These were kids that didn't even know how to throw a ball. Or catch it. I hope I made a difference for kids like that. It was very rewarding for me, and a lifetime of memories I hope for my kids. I made it out pretty lucky with very few parent issues. Other coaches were always my biggest peeve.
Chris...that is awesome...and that is the exact type of coach I was.