Youth Sports - Conflicting Rants (1 Viewer)

[bigbottom]

I hear people ranting all the time about the following two things, roughly in equal proportion:

1) Youth sports is no longer competitive. Parents are afraid to let their kids fail. Every kid is a special flower these days that needs to be coddled. Whether it's every player getting trophies, the worst players getting equal playing time, mercy rules, or even not keeping score at all, kids are no longer experiencing the highs and lows of competition, of winning and losing. Instead, all these parents care about is making little Johnny feel like he's a winner, even when he strikes out 15 times in a row, or can't make a free throw to save his life. The wussification of America continues, and all these wussified parents are destroying the competitive spirit and drive to succeed.

2) Youth sports is too competitive. Parents are hypercompetitive and all they care about is that little Johnny and his team win at all costs. Whether it's screaming at coaches and umps during the game, making their kids play a single sport year round, paying thousands of dollars for trainers and individual instruction, parents are too damn competitive and sucking the fun out of youth sports. It's no longer about having a good time and going out for pizza after the game, win or lose. Now it's about winning the league, making it to select ball or a traveling team. It's about parents spending an hour after every game lecturing their kids on how they could have played better. It's about practicing drills endlessly in the back yard, rather than just having a catch with your dad. Parents are living vicariously through their kids, are too freaking competitive, and are burning out their kids on what used to be a fun game.

So which is the greater issue? Which is happening with more frequency? Which is more damaging to our kids?

 

[Godsbrother]

Of course there is always a balance but overall I think 2 is a bigger problem.

 

[gianmarco]

Oh boy, here we go.

Both are major problems. I think the first has more long term consequences for society as a whole. I think the second has more long term consequences for some individuals.

 

[sbonomo]

Yet another reason not to have kids. :no kids:

 

[Politician Spock]

This is why the focus of any youth league needs to be established at the beginning... because it can't lean both ways.

 

[Guest]

Parents ranting are the issue.

 

[Angry Beavers]

There are both extremes out there for sure. What ever happened to letting kids compete in a healthy environment?

 

[Jobber]

I think 1 is more in line with rec sports, and has been like this for a very long time. I don't see it as a problem if say a 7 year old 0 - 10 tball team gets trophies after the season.

 

[trogg78]

1. Kids should be rewarded for hard work and not just for winning.

2. Kids should be able to play sports at a level of competition that fits their abilities.

 

[Jayrod]

I hear people ranting all the time about the following two things, roughly in equal proportion:

1) Youth sports is no longer competitive. Parents are afraid to let their kids fail. Every kid is a special flower these days that needs to be coddled. Whether it's every player getting trophies, the worst players getting equal playing time, mercy rules, or even not keeping score at all, kids are no longer experiencing the highs and lows of competition, of winning and losing. Instead, all these parents care about is making little Johnny feel like he's a winner, even when he strikes out 15 times in a row, or can't make a free throw to save his life. The wussification of America continues, and all these wussified parents are destroying the competitive spirit and drive to succeed.

2) Youth sports is too competitive. Parents are hypercompetitive and all they care about is that little Johnny and his team win at all costs. Whether it's screaming at coaches and umps during the game, making their kids play a single sport year round, paying thousands of dollars for trainers and individual instruction, parents are too damn competitive and sucking the fun out of youth sports. It's no longer about having a good time and going out for pizza after the game, win or lose. Now it's about winning the league, making it to select ball or a traveling team. It's about parents spending an hour after every game lecturing their kids on how they could have played better. It's about practicing drills endlessly in the back yard, rather than just having a catch with your dad. Parents are living vicariously through their kids, are too freaking competitive, and are burning out their kids on what used to be a fun game.

So which is the greater issue? Which is happening with more frequency? Which is more damaging to our kids?

I think #1 is a greater issue, because it is happening with more frequency. However, it is a backlash to how damaging #2 is.

There is a fine line and it should really be based on age and experience/talent levels. Both extremes are bad. Since #2 is worse, it is made a bigger deal of, but the issues with #1 are much more prevalent.

 

[Judge Smails]

It's really both, and it's why many sports are splitting in two - rec vs. travel ball. The split isn't 100% a bad thing - it let's players and parents who just want to have fun and experience a sport do that. If I had to pick #2 is the worst, because many parents have in their head that just because little Johnny is coordinated at 10 and one of the better players while he might not make the pros, he can at least get a college scholarship. Hence the private lessons, the lectures, the burn out, the Tommy John surgeries, etc. John Smoltz said so much in his Hall of Fame speech yesterday. These sports, especially baseball, are not meant to be played year round by young kids.

 

[belljr]

The main issue I see is too many kids that are not good enough end up on competitive teams because their parents pay the money but also because the competitive teams don't get enough players because kids and or parents don't want that kind of commitment.

So you end up with players on teams that shouldn't be and you also get girls that are really good blowing away the rest.

Also and let's be honest you get poor coaching and laziness. Now I totally understand it's volunteer so I'll never bemoan someone for wanting to help but many lack the knowledge of the game and or teaching skills. Having a basic understanding of the game does not make you qualified.

There are so many options parents don't dedicate the time. There is no at home drills no home learning. Also kids play too many games and don't practice enough.

You get better practicing.

We can't get volunteers to help with the fields anymore.

People turned youth athletics into a money making scam. Parents will pay extra money for personal training but will skip practice. It makes no sense.

And many parents over value their kids skill level.

It also depends on age group. I have no problems with younger groups not worrying about winning and losing but not when you get older

I really am all over the place with this post.

 

[General Malaise]

Having been around it now for 7 years with my sons, my experiences is that there IS a middle ground of sanity for most kids who want to play sports, have fun and try to compete/win.

Issue #1 seems to apply to the younger kids from my experience. For example, Kick & Chase soccer is for 4-6 year olds with pop-up goals. No official score is being kept. The number one goal of the coach is to get the kids to sign up again and continue to practice the fundamentals. And though I gave up doing this years ago, giving the kids a $5 plastic trophy keeps them excited and makes them want to come back. As they progress through U7, U8, U9, etc, soccer will evolve from them. More players are on the field, goals are bigger, score is kept and the kids who are great are usually encouraged or recruited to play classic or select soccer. U11-U12 REC soccer is really the sweet spot in the middle from my perspective. Good competition, score being kept, trophies are (or should be) a thing of the past (unless they enter and WIN a tournament), league dues are reasonable and parents for the most part are there to enjoy the action on the pitch.

The wheat and chaff separate around age 9-10 for soccer. I have zero experience with elite soccer as a parent or coach, but as a board member of our youth league I know that parents, coaches and even players can be highly competitive. I also know the money involved is much greater than what is required for REC soccer. A parent shelling out over $1,000 a season for soccer might be a little more involved. They are traveling to games, the coaches are less interested in players' feelings and far more interested in winning (some of these coaches are paid too, so it's hard to fault them) which could tweak the parents, the kids are playing with kids from other schools, so familiarity isn't there for parents, etc. I'm not saying I agree with they hypercompetitive nature in Example 2, but I might understand parents who are more involved than maybe they should be.

Lastly, I spent the weekend with my 11 year old son playing 3 vs 3 basketball by the Blazers' arena. It was a fabulous weekend with all sorts of talent ranging from elite kids to guys my age to guys in wheel chairs. Dozens of small courts, music blaring, people balling all over. It was a chance for my son (who plays mostly rec basketball) to play with a couple of kids who are into elite hoops and club teams. And my biggest takeaway from the weekend wasn't "wow, some of the parents need to tone it back" or "my god, that coach thinks he is Bobby Knight" nor was it "good god, they aren't even keeping score, why not give everybody a participation ribbon"....my biggest takeaway was "Damn! This is cool. We WILL be back next year". And that's a takeaway after my son's team went 1-3. They got beat by better teams. But it was competitive, it was full of good sportsmanship, it was fun. Fun fun fun. The way youth sports should be designed and played by kids, coaches and even parents.

 

[General Malaise]

In example 1, what ages are we talking about? I think most of the "no score, everybody is a winner, no outs in T-ball" is for the young kids. Maybe it is different here, but most of the sports and leagues I've been involved with evolve as the kids age. By 3rd grade, I think every sport we played at the rec level kept score and had winners/losers.

Also, there may be a few things in life worse than T-ball, but I can't think of too many. That truly is the bottom of the barrell for youth sports.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I agree with everything GM said, except the part about him "giving this up years ago." He is gonna be coaching for a LONG time to come.

 

[General Malaise]

I agree with everything GM said, except the part about him "giving this up years ago." He is gonna be coaching for a LONG time to come.

Yeah, I'll be back in the trophy store soon enough.

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

I could write a very long post on this topic, but I think the bottom line is that both extremes exist and both extremes are problematic.

I also agree with the one poster who suggested that extreme #1 (everybody wins, always) is probably more damaging at the macro level, because of the entitlement culture that it feeds into. But the competitive extreme is also negative for a wide variety of reasons. One of the worst is that it causes kids to specialize at way too young of an age. And it also leads to the alientation of "late bloomers" from sports in general.

 

[sbonomo]

I think 1 is more in line with rec sports, and has been like this for a very long time. I don't see it as a problem if say a 7 year old 0 - 10 tball team gets trophies after the season.

Your interests explain this response.

 

[General Malaise]

I could write a very long post on this topic, but I think the bottom line is that both extremes exist and both extremes are problematic.

I also agree with the one poster who suggested that extreme #1 (everybody wins, always) is probably more damaging at the macro level, because of the entitlement culture that it feeds into. But the competitive extreme is also negative for a wide variety of reasons. One of the worst is that it causes kids to specialize at way too young of an age. And it also leads to the alientation of "late bloomers" from sports in general.

Yeah, I agree with this a bit. Coop's going to be a late bloomer and he's already one of the youngest kids in his class. Playing sports now, he is at a big size disadvantage with kids who are in the same grade, but a full year (and even more in some cases) older. Size and speed are developing faster in other kids he plays with and against and you really can't coach those two parts of the important equation.

 

[Slapdash]

#2

 

[Ned]

I could write a very long post on this topic, but I think the bottom line is that both extremes exist and both extremes are problematic.

I also agree with the one poster who suggested that extreme #1 (everybody wins, always) is probably more damaging at the macro level, because of the entitlement culture that it feeds into. But the competitive extreme is also negative for a wide variety of reasons. One of the worst is that it causes kids to specialize at way too young of an age. And it also leads to the alientation of "late bloomers" from sports in general.

Yeah, I agree with this a bit. Coop's going to be a late bloomer and he's already one of the youngest kids in his class. Playing sports now, he is at a big size disadvantage with kids who are in the same grade, but a full year (and even more in some cases) older. Size and speed are developing faster in other kids he plays with and against and you really can't coach those two parts of the important equation.

Time for Coop to re-do a grade.

 

[FUBAR]

This is why the focus of any youth league needs to be established at the beginning... because it can't lean both ways.

right. IMO, there's basically 3 tiers.

1. Beginners, just having fun and learning the sport. pre-school leagues should be this way, as should some other leagues for older kids who don't want to be overly competitive.

2. Travel teams. While still not pro, these should be much more competitive, and for older kids. Too many 5-9 year olds are already doing these, but jr. high and high school teams should be competitive as a default. There are still boundaries, parents and coaches need to not be #######s, but these leagues are competitive by nature.

3. Mid-tier. Generally speaking, most 6-12 year old leagues. Keep score, encourage hard work and dedication while also requiring fair play - spirit as well as the rulebook.

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

I could write a very long post on this topic, but I think the bottom line is that both extremes exist and both extremes are problematic.

I also agree with the one poster who suggested that extreme #1 (everybody wins, always) is probably more damaging at the macro level, because of the entitlement culture that it feeds into. But the competitive extreme is also negative for a wide variety of reasons. One of the worst is that it causes kids to specialize at way too young of an age. And it also leads to the alientation of "late bloomers" from sports in general.

Yeah, I agree with this a bit. Coop's going to be a late bloomer and he's already one of the youngest kids in his class. Playing sports now, he is at a big size disadvantage with kids who are in the same grade, but a full year (and even more in some cases) older. Size and speed are developing faster in other kids he plays with and against and you really can't coach those two parts of the important equation.

The big issue is that kids who become coordinated or interested in sports later have no real shot because the kids who have "potential" have been playing select/travel for years and the remaining rec leagues (having been robbed of almost all athletically talented kids) are like the island of misfit toys, if they exist at all.

 

[FUBAR]

I could write a very long post on this topic, but I think the bottom line is that both extremes exist and both extremes are problematic.

I also agree with the one poster who suggested that extreme #1 (everybody wins, always) is probably more damaging at the macro level, because of the entitlement culture that it feeds into. But the competitive extreme is also negative for a wide variety of reasons. One of the worst is that it causes kids to specialize at way too young of an age. And it also leads to the alientation of "late bloomers" from sports in general.

Yeah, I agree with this a bit. Coop's going to be a late bloomer and he's already one of the youngest kids in his class. Playing sports now, he is at a big size disadvantage with kids who are in the same grade, but a full year (and even more in some cases) older. Size and speed are developing faster in other kids he plays with and against and you really can't coach those two parts of the important equation.

Time for Coop to re-do a grade.

yep. clearly he needs help in math and reading if he isn't towering over the other kids.

 

[FUBAR]

In example 1, what ages are we talking about? I think most of the "no score, everybody is a winner, no outs in T-ball" is for the young kids. Maybe it is different here, but most of the sports and leagues I've been involved with evolve as the kids age. By 3rd grade, I think every sport we played at the rec level kept score and had winners/losers.

Also, there may be a few things in life worse than T-ball, but I can't think of too many. That truly is the bottom of the barrell for youth sports.

I get to be an assistant coach for my youngest son's under-5 soccer team. We're gonna DOMINATE!!!11!

 

[Ned]

This is why the focus of any youth league needs to be established at the beginning... because it can't lean both ways.

right. IMO, there's basically 3 tiers.

1. Beginners, just having fun and learning the sport. pre-school leagues should be this way, as should some other leagues for older kids who don't want to be overly competitive.

2. Travel teams. While still not pro, these should be much more competitive, and for older kids. Too many 5-9 year olds are already doing these, but jr. high and high school teams should be competitive as a default. There are still boundaries, parents and coaches need to not be #######s, but these leagues are competitive by nature.

3. Mid-tier. Generally speaking, most 6-12 year old leagues. Keep score, encourage hard work and dedication while also requiring fair play - spirit as well as the rulebook.

As a pretty new dad to all this, I think this seems pretty good to me. One of the rec coaches was pushing us to get our 6yr old son on a "pre-academy" travel soccer team. Sorry, but I think that's too young. As much as I'd love to say my 6yr old is on a travel soccer team, it's a little ridiculous to push him into that at such a young age. We'll wait until he turns 7.

 

[Politician Spock]

Also, there may be a few things in life worse than T-ball, but I can't think of too many. That truly is the bottom of the barrell for youth sports.

Worst thing I ever saw was 4 and 5 year olds playing soccer. It's just a big mob of kids moving around the field and somewhere in the middle of it is a soccer ball.

 

[tdog]

My theory is that #1 does not really exist as it is the product of pushing organized competitive sports to younger kids, where the everyone get a trophy thing makes some sense. By the time they hit 9 or 10 you can't fool them into thinking some participation trinket is as good as a championship. The entitlement culture our grumpy generation talks about seems related to things that occur later (although I guess the more profound elements of this issue may get their start here). That everyone gets at least B+ at Harvard is probably more of entitlement maker than a participation trophy for a 6 year old but I understand where this can become a problem.

I am trying to understand #2 and how it relates in part to #1. It used to be that if your best player at your school, you could feel that sense of entitlement. Now, if you have success at one level, the competitive nature of youth sports has created multiple new levels for you to fail in. No longer can you be a big fish in a little pond. Being good just pushes you up to another level where you can meet the type of humbling failure that the local star player from the past never had. The youth sports pyramid is set up to spend money to move up in order to fail and realize you need to spend even more money to overcome the failure. Neat business model but the added competitive nature also leads to more opportunities to fail.

In my opinion, the biggest problem is the push to specialization. It is a harder one to get a handle on as there is a positive desire to get better at something that should be fostered but it also feeds the negative aspects of over-competitive parents. It may also lead to that entitlement issue of #1 as kids with limited ability can achieve certain success through specialization that exceed their actual ability. The ability to be an elite 12 year old soccer player through year-long training generally does not make one a great 16-year-old player, a time when the true athletes bubble to the top. I wonder if the sense of entitlement (some it admittedly earned through the training effort) comes from the continued belief that the kid was a special athlete when in reality it was because the parents had the special ability to take the kid to all this training.

 

[Mr. Ected]

I could write a very long post on this topic, but I think the bottom line is that both extremes exist and both extremes are problematic.

I also agree with the one poster who suggested that extreme #1 (everybody wins, always) is probably more damaging at the macro level, because of the entitlement culture that it feeds into. But the competitive extreme is also negative for a wide variety of reasons. One of the worst is that it causes kids to specialize at way too young of an age. And it also leads to the alientation of "late bloomers" from sports in general.

Yeah, I agree with this a bit. Coop's going to be a late bloomer and he's already one of the youngest kids in his class. Playing sports now, he is at a big size disadvantage with kids who are in the same grade, but a full year (and even more in some cases) older. Size and speed are developing faster in other kids he plays with and against and you really can't coach those two parts of the important equation.

Had my boys playing in a flag football league, they are 15 months apart, and they were assigned to the same team in the same league. As parents we were thrilled, since we only had to take the boys to one event together. Unfortunately, the younger guy became disinterested in playing since he isn't huge to begin with, being a year younger hurt even more. He was always assigned to lesser value positions, because he wasn't as big or as fast as the other guys. The coach(es - this happened a couple times) just wanted to win.

One season, the boys were assigned to a GB Packers team. The younger son, a Packer fan, was thrilled. My correct, Bears-loving older son at first refused to wear the Packers jersey. I told him to wear the evil jersey over his #34 Sweetness jersey that was mine as a child, that way the nastiness wouldn't touch his skin. He understood, and wore the jersey that way. For the rest of the season, he would wear another shirt to the game, then put on the team jersey at the last minute, and would rip it off after the game, to limit the time he had to wear it. Smart kid!!

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Also, there may be a few things in life worse than T-ball, but I can't think of too many. That truly is the bottom of the barrell for youth sports.

Worst thing I ever saw was 4 and 5 year olds playing soccer. It's just a big mob of kids moving around the field and somewhere in the middle of it is a soccer ball.

At least the kids were moving. That puts it several steps above T-ball.

 

[Cjw_55106]

As with anything in life, sports, politics, religion, etc. extremism is not a good thing.

 

[Jayrod]

My son will be playing on his first "select" type team this fall. He will be playing on a basketball team in a fairly competitive league. My good friend, who is a HS girls basketball coach, is putting the team together and will be coaching them. His approach is fundamentals and hard work. He is also the funniest guy I know, so the kids will have fun, but learn a lot.

I'm curious to see how my son handles this, but after three years of rec leagues, he is ready for some increased competition. His baseball league this season was exceptionally boring to him with no keeping score, nobody advancing extra bases, strict run limits, etc. He has been the best player on his last few teams this year (LOOK AT ME!!!) by virtue of being the oldest/biggest, and he really needs a challenge. I think this league will be good for him.

Unfortunately, I'm going to miss most of the games as the league plays on Friday nights when I'll be reffing HS football.

 

[snellman]

In example 1, what ages are we talking about? I think most of the "no score, everybody is a winner, no outs in T-ball" is for the young kids. Maybe it is different here, but most of the sports and leagues I've been involved with evolve as the kids age. By 3rd grade, I think every sport we played at the rec level kept score and had winners/losers.

Also, there may be a few things in life worse than T-ball, but I can't think of too many. That truly is the bottom of the barrell for youth sports.

Yes it is, going through this with my youngest. Only good thing is that is not completely t-ball. The coaches pitch, so it is a good start for batting. However, all of the kids bat each inning and it is hillarious when they are in the field because all of them play in the field so it is like a swarm of flies going to the ball when it is hit. I can't wait for him to get to the next level, but unfortunately I have one more year of this (they do this for k-2nd grade)

 

[Politician Spock]

Also, there may be a few things in life worse than T-ball, but I can't think of too many. That truly is the bottom of the barrell for youth sports.

Worst thing I ever saw was 4 and 5 year olds playing soccer. It's just a big mob of kids moving around the field and somewhere in the middle of it is a soccer ball.

At least the kids were moving. That puts it several steps above T-ball.

That's weird. When my kids played t-ball, the coaches had a hell of a time getting the kids to STOP moving.

 

[belljr]

We are pretty good here in softball

We have rec by grade

Travel by age

Then club. Area team with no restrictions.

Our town travel will also join the group they think the kids can play.

This year my daughter is trying out for the 10u travel. She was just ahead of many of the rec kids. So our travel is like a mid tier

 

[FUBAR]

My theory is that #1 does not really exist as it is the product of pushing organized competitive sports to younger kids, where the everyone get a trophy thing makes some sense. By the time they hit 9 or 10 you can't fool them into thinking some participation trinket is as good as a championship. The entitlement culture our grumpy generation talks about seems related to things that occur later (although I guess the more profound elements of this issue may get their start here). That everyone gets at least B+ at Harvard is probably more of entitlement maker than a participation trophy for a 6 year old but I understand where this can become a problem.

I am trying to understand #2 and how it relates in part to #1. It used to be that if your best player at your school, you could feel that sense of entitlement. Now, if you have success at one level, the competitive nature of youth sports has created multiple new levels for you to fail in. No longer can you be a big fish in a little pond. Being good just pushes you up to another level where you can meet the type of humbling failure that the local star player from the past never had. The youth sports pyramid is set up to spend money to move up in order to fail and realize you need to spend even more money to overcome the failure. Neat business model but the added competitive nature also leads to more opportunities to fail.

In my opinion, the biggest problem is the push to specialization. It is a harder one to get a handle on as there is a positive desire to get better at something that should be fostered but it also feeds the negative aspects of over-competitive parents. It may also lead to that entitlement issue of #1 as kids with limited ability can achieve certain success through specialization that exceed their actual ability. The ability to be an elite 12 year old soccer player through year-long training generally does not make one a great 16-year-old player, a time when the true athletes bubble to the top. I wonder if the sense of entitlement (some it admittedly earned through the training effort) comes from the continued belief that the kid was a special athlete when in reality it was because the parents had the special ability to take the kid to all this training.

agreed. when most of us were in HS, you could somewhat easily play a different sport each season. whether it was football/basketball/baseball for our jocks, or cross-country/swimming/track for us less coordinated kids who enjoyed sports, or some mix, most kids player multiple sports. Now, it's rare.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

That's weird. When my kids played t-ball, the coaches had a hell of a time getting the kids to STOP moving.

Exactly. "Stop moving around, we're trying to play some sports here!"

 

[Pipes]

In example 1, what ages are we talking about? I think most of the "no score, everybody is a winner, no outs in T-ball" is for the young kids. Maybe it is different here, but most of the sports and leagues I've been involved with evolve as the kids age. By 3rd grade, I think every sport we played at the rec level kept score and had winners/losers.

Also, there may be a few things in life worse than T-ball, but I can't think of too many. That truly is the bottom of the barrell for youth sports.

This. My son is 13 and has had or does play baseball, football, basketball, Lacrosse and soccer. The no scoring, everyone gets a trophy went out the window probably kindergarten or 1st grade tops. And when they're 6 & 7 who really cares it's about getting kids involved and keeping them entertained at that age. For sure #2 is the biggest problem and it's not close.

 

[Politician Spock]

That's weird. When my kids played t-ball, the coaches had a hell of a time getting the kids to STOP moving.

Exactly. "Stop moving around, we're trying to play some sports here!"

As ironic as it sounds, no one wants a 5 year old to take a line drive to the head because they're playing hopscotch in the dirt at shortstop when the batter is swinging.

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

That's weird. When my kids played t-ball, the coaches had a hell of a time getting the kids to STOP moving.

Exactly. "Stop moving around, we're trying to play some sports here!"

As ironic as it sounds, no one wants a 5 year old to take a line drive to the head because they're playing hopscotch in the dirt at shortstop when the batter is swinging.

Not to sound insensitive, but in tee-ball this isn't really as bad as it sounds (or looks). I saw a kid who was lined up at "pitcher" but insufficiently alert take a scorching line drive right between the eyes. He fell down and there were tears and screams (the latter coming from his mom), but he was 100% fine. The regulation t-balls have a foam core and aren't too different from a tennis ball or raquet ball.

 

[General Malaise]

Also, there may be a few things in life worse than T-ball, but I can't think of too many. That truly is the bottom of the barrell for youth sports.

Worst thing I ever saw was 4 and 5 year olds playing soccer. It's just a big mob of kids moving around the field and somewhere in the middle of it is a soccer ball.

Yeah, but the clock is moving and the action is at least, well....action. Have you done T-ball yet? If not, a primer.

- There are no outs. Repeat, no outs. Even if by some miracle or act of nature, the first baseman fields a hit ball and steps on the bag in advance of the runner, he/she is SAFE and remains on the bag.

- Everybody on the team bats each inning. 10 players? 10 at bats. 12 players? 12 at bats, etc.

- The player swings at the ball on the Tee until he/she hits it. You ever watch blind people try and hit a pinada? It's a lot like that, only worse.

- There's no clock. There's no 'hurry up'. In the immortal words of Fudge in Higher Learning: "It's over when it's over, dude".

 

[randall146]

3. Youth sports is too organized, which results in both 1 and 2. Ban the kids from the house. Let them play what they want, when they want

 

[Deranged Hermit]

For #1, I see that in younger leagues like t-ball and coach pitch. I have no problem with the 'every kid gets a trophy' mentality there. I coached three years in those leagues and, to be honest, you know which kids aren't going to cut it as they get older so I have no problem with the kids getting coddled at that age.

For #2 I see more for travel teams. Again, I have no problem here either. Most of the time, these kids are the cream of the crop and put extra time in to excel.

IMO, rec ball is the middle tier here. When I coach, I make my intentions known right at the beginning of the year: every kid will play every game, but some will play more. In a blow out I may let a kid try a position they aren't familiar with just to let them try. That being said, I'm coaching 13-15 year olds now so that doesn't happen often. It's a small tightrope to walk across, but I'm told that I cross it well. I know most other coaches don't feel that way though, so I'm sure I'm in the minority.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

Also, there may be a few things in life worse than T-ball, but I can't think of too many. That truly is the bottom of the barrell for youth sports.

The first year of kid-pitch is worse imo. I've no idea how parents can sit through that without plenty of beer and a good book.

 

[Politician Spock]

Also, there may be a few things in life worse than T-ball, but I can't think of too many. That truly is the bottom of the barrell for youth sports.

Worst thing I ever saw was 4 and 5 year olds playing soccer. It's just a big mob of kids moving around the field and somewhere in the middle of it is a soccer ball.

Yeah, but the clock is moving and the action is at least, well....action. Have you done T-ball yet? If not, a primer.

- There are no outs. Repeat, no outs. Even if by some miracle or act of nature, the first baseman fields a hit ball and steps on the bag in advance of the runner, he/she is SAFE and remains on the bag.

- Everybody on the team bats each inning. 10 players? 10 at bats. 12 players? 12 at bats, etc.

- The player swings at the ball on the Tee until he/she hits it. You ever watch blind people try and hit a pinada? It's a lot like that, only worse.

- There's no clock. There's no 'hurry up'. In the immortal words of Fudge in Higher Learning: "It's over when it's over, dude".

My boys are 12 and 10 now. Yes t-ball is exactly what you describe. The big difference is despite how ridiculous the rules of t-ball are, the kids get a chance to do the fundamentals of baseball, which are to hit, catch, run and throw. 5 years old playing soccer don't actually learn anything about playing soccer. The ball is set on the field and the mob moves it around for an hour.

 

[Apple Jack]

the travel sports thing is a great racket

 

[Da Guru]

IMO it depends of the kids playing. Both my daughters played college volleyball. That was never my intention when they started. My oldest daughter was in 7th grade playing in a CYO volleyball league when I started getting calls at my home from club teams and HS Catholic school coaches about her. Then my younger one by one year started getting the same and it snowballed into HS ball, then spring club ball and national travel volleyball all over the country. Every year I asked them "Are you having fun and do you want to keep this pace up?" They loved it and actually enjoyed working out and doing all the summer camps at colleges. I never wanted them to play just for me like many kids do.

That being said I saw first hand many girls who were great athletes but pushed so hard by their parents that they quit the game. I know 2 that had full scholarships at Big Ten schools that quit playing before their freshman year. Many others that just burned out from almost year round schedule.

The only advice I would give every parent who has a child involved is to closely monitor their kids. Highly competitive kids should play higher levels of the sport if they choose and then it can become about winning and losing. Kids that just like playing sports but do not have much interest in all the training should play rec league type of sports. The parents should be able to tell what kind of league their child belongs in.

 

[sublimeone]

Great topic.

Real Sports just did a segment on this. They talked with many professionals who suggested everyone receiving trophies was unhealthy and created unrealistic expectations and an inability to adapt. I have a one-year old so I'm not sure what I think yet but here's where I'm at so far:

Ultra competitive leagues: Unless my son is really motivated and really good at a sport, I won't be pushing him in this direction. But I am glad they exist because some kids are serious about sports and there's nothing more frustrating than when you are giving 100% at practice and games and the other kids are watching the grass grow. Plus all the awesome kids can play in travel leagues and the rest of the kids will have more fun playing in the park district league. If my son ever ends up playing at this level I will understand ultra competitiveness is part of the gig.

Park District Leagues: these are leagues for one thing: Fun. Forget about pushing your kids, arguing calls, etc... If your kid is a serious ball player put him in the competitive league. Trophies? I received a trophy every year I played football in elementary and jr. high. We stunk. I never thought we won anything because I got a trophy... so no harm IMO. Trophies may contribute to the self-entitlement generation but it's a cultural issue more than a trophy issue.

 

[Deranged Hermit]

IMO it depends of the kids playing. Both my daughter played college volleyball. That was never my intention when they started. My oldest daughter was in 7th grade playing in a CYO volleyball league when I started getting calls at my home from club teams and HS Catholic school coaches about her. Then my younger one by one year started getting the same and it snowballed into HS ball, then spring club ball and national travel volleyball all over the country. Every year I asked them "Are you having fun and do you want to keep this pace up?" They loved it and actually enjoyed working out and doing all the summer camps at colleges. I never wanted them to play just for me like many kids do.

That being said I saw first hand many girls who were great athletes but pushed so hard by their parents that they quit the game. I know 2 that had full scholarships at Big Ten schools that quit playing before their freshman year. Many others that just burned out from almost year round schedule.

The only advice I would give every parent who has a child involved is to closely monitor their kids. Highly competitive kids should play higher levels of the sport if they choose Kids that just like playing but do not have much interest in all the training should play rec league type of sports. The parents should be able to tell what kind of league their child belongs in.

I'd like this a million times if I could.

My son has turned down all-stars every year he's played as well as multiple invites to travel ball teams. I even had one travel team that was so hell-bent on getting Chris to play, the coach offered to 'take care' of the fees. Every time, my son told them the same thing: 'No thanks, July and August are when I go to mom-mom and pop-pop's to fish and swim (my parents live, literally, 500 yards from the water)'.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

An anecdote regarding #1: a good friend from Germany was visiting relatives in California last year and was surprised to see the kids laughing, passing around the treats and getting medals after losing badly. He said in Germany the winning team gets a huge trophy; the runner up gets a smaller trophy, everyone else is crying.